Source: The Interpreter (4 May 2022)
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/death-penalty-singapore-s-growing-abolition-movement
The sun baked the concrete and tarmac as mourners walked behind a hearse carrying Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam, wailing and crying out for the life that had been lost. Over 200 people attended his funeral, sending him off on the final leg of a horrific journey that had begun 13 years ago, when Nagaenthran had been arrested in Singapore and eventually charged with trafficking 42.72 grams of heroin.
Nagaenthran’s story triggered an outpouring of support and concern in the final six months of his life. Although the Singapore government has repeatedly insisted that he was not intellectually disabled – even going as far as to issue a statement to that effect on the day he was hanged in prison – it was not a matter of contention that he’d had an IQ of 69, far below the average, and that he had “borderline intellectual functioning” as well as other cognitive impairments. As far as international standards were concerned, Nagaenthran was a person with intellectual/psychosocial disabilities. When his family first received an execution notice in October 2021, informing them that he would be put to death on 10 November, people expressed shock at how cold the letter was, informing his mother in bureaucratic language about the imminent hanging of her son.
Unlike most other death row prisoners in Singapore, Nagaenthran’s case attracted the attention of the international press. People followed its twist and turns, through desperate late-stage court applications to the surreal stay of execution that came after he tested positive for Covid-19, making him somehow too sick to kill. An online petition urging the President of Singapore to grant him clemency garnered over 100,000 signatures. Solidarity letters were signed by people from multiple sectors, from healthcare workers to professionals within the legal industry. When the Singapore government ignored our pleas and executed him anyway on 27 April, many Singaporeans showed up at the wake the mourn him, bringing flowers and cards and handwritten messages of support for his family.
The breadth of support for Nagaenthran that materialised within a very short period was not something I’d seen before as an abolitionist in Singapore. In 2010, the family of Yong Vui Kong – who has since been re-sentenced to life imprisonment – had also gathered over 100,000 petition signatures, but it had taken them weeks of canvassing in the streets of Singapore and Malaysia to reach that number.
Nagaenthran’s psychosocial disabilities made his case a particularly sympathetic one. Even people who were not necessarily against capital punishment agreed that a vulnerable person like him should have been spared. But that alone cannot account for the increase in support for abolition, and the shift in discourse on the death penalty in the country that is underway.
On 3 April, a protest against the death penalty drew a crowd of about 400; three weeks later a vigil for Nagaenthran and another death row prisoner, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah (originally scheduled for execution on 29 April, but who later received a stay of execution) had a similarly strong turn-out. Unlike the campaigns on which I’d worked on a decade ago, which had tended to focus on the specifics of a particular case, the participants of these protests demanded not just pity and mercy for a specific person, but complete abolition of the capital punishment regime. Placards and chants zeroed in on systemic oppression and exploitation, pointing to the intersections of race, class and structural inequality. People did not hesitate to describe death sentences as murder and state violence, and to call for an end to the killing.
Singaporeans, usually assumed to be protest-averse and politically passive, are also coming forward to act on their convictions. Ahead of executions, multiple people have personally delivered letters to the presidential palace, seeking pardons for death row prisoners. The night before Nagaenthran’s execution, a small group of Singaporeans gathered outside Changi Prison despite a heavy police presence, writing messages and saying prayers for a man they had never met, but whose humanity they recognised and cared for.
While it is true that most Singaporeans are still in favour of the death penalty, a comprehensive public opinion survey conducted by academics has shown that this support isn’t as overwhelming and unshakeable as the government often portrays it to be. Abolitionist sentiments and conversations have emerged on social media platforms despite being largely excluded from local mainstream media coverage. The government still insists that the death penalty for drugs is an effective deterrence, imposing their own interpretations of public opinion surveys to push that claim. But a growing number of Singaporeans are now questioning and challenging, even directly rejecting, this dominant narrative.
The impact of such expressions of support cannot be understated. While still in the minority in terms of overall public sentiment in the country, the fact that people are showing up and taking action not only grows the movement, but also has a deep and lasting impact on the loved ones of those on death row. Family members often feel silenced, intimidated and humiliated by the stigma attached to having a relative on death row – public demonstrations of solidarity show them that they are not alone in their fight. In recent years, my conversations with families have evolved. Where they used to focus only on the specifics of their loved one’s case, family members now express much more concern for every other case on death row, and repeatedly state the need for complete abolition of the death penalty.
Nagaenthran’s death caused much pain and suffering, particularly for his family, but also for many Singaporeans who had desperately wished for him to be spared. Many people will need time to process their shock, disappointment, anger and grief, but the anti-death penalty movement presses on. We have no other choice. Although Datchinamurthy, who lived in the cell next to Nagaenthran’s, managed to win himself a stay of execution, such stays are only temporary, and multiple prisoners are at risk of imminent execution. While we did not succeed in keeping Nagaenthran alive, the support his story garnered for the abolitionist movement now represents hope for many others.
Showing posts with label public opinion and death penalty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public opinion and death penalty. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 May 2022
Thursday, 24 February 2022
Families of 30 death row inmates hopeful Putrajaya will abolish capital punishment this year
Source: Malay Mail (21 February 2022)
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/02/21/families-of-30-death-row-inmates-hopeful-putrajaya-will-abolish-capital-pun/2042954
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 21 — The families of more than 30 death row inmates are hopeful that this year they will get some form of cheer should the Malaysian government decide to abolish the death penalty.
This comes amid Putrajaya’s promise to study proposed alternatives to the death penalty before the end of this month, as mentioned by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law) Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who said a special committee tasked to review the death penalty had briefed him of its findings last month.
Shamala T Manickarajah is a representative of the families who is spearheading the movement along with the various NGOs in order to push for the release, retrial, reduction of sentence, and ultimately, the abolishment of the death penalty of those convicted.
Shamala said she was inspired to help the families after finding out a childhood friend’s husband had been sentenced for drug possession. He has been in jail in Perlis for 13 years.
As part of her efforts, she shared how she helps the families write letters to the various agencies and to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong yearly begging for clemency for the convicted.
She said most of the families did not know how to go about getting clemency so she guided them through the process.
“After repping my friend, I was going to Bentong jail and saw many prisoners crying, waiting for family members so I decided to help them and not just my friend’s husband. I recall in the early days I helped all the makciks and pakciks fill up their forms and wrote letters for them to the prisons and so on. Most of them are poor.
“Last year, we went as a group to see Datuk Liew Vui Keong and he promised to look into our cases but he then passed away. When we went to Putrajaya to the offices, we were told they have our letters and are considering them so we are hoping for the best,” Shamala said during a press conference organised by Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM) today.
“We heard this year the Agong nominated 27 names for pardon. We are praying it is some of us because many of the victims have been in prison for more than a decade.”
In August 2019, the Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration formed the Special Committee to Review Alternative Punishments to the Mandatory Death Penalty to examine alternatives to the mandatory death sentence.
The PH government collapsed in February 2020, however, before the Bill for the abolition of the death penalty could be tabled in the March meeting of Parliament that year.
Wan Junaidi had said that before the government decides on any amendments, it needed to determine the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime while also looking at alternative punishments.
Chiara Sangiorgio, an expert on the death penalty for Amnesty International, said the general public was always hesitant to agree to abolishing the death penalty but studies show that once the rule was in place, society eventually eased into it.
“The global trend shows most countries are abolishing it as it was eight countries in 1958, now it is 108 countries that have abolished the death penalty.
“When it is abolished, public opinion changes despite the initial hesitancy; hence, we need to continue to talk about death penalty and challenge its effectiveness as there is no evidence to show it prevents further crime,” said Chiara.
In addition Chiara said from 2015 to 2020, 10 countries conducted executions and in 2020 Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq made up close to 90 per cent of total reported executions worldwide.
There are eight countries including Malaysia that execute people for drug offences.
“While the direction is clear, Malaysia is at a crossroads but they have the opportunity to make the change. There’s been some progress with the moratorium but what we have learnt when it comes to the use of the death penalty in Malaysia see lot of arbitrariness a lot of unfairness and discrimination.
“The key learning from this is that piecemeal reforms will not work and fixing the unfixable will not work. That’s why we call for a bold stance to be taken by the government of Malaysia and get rid of it once and for all,” she said.
Malaysia has had a moratorium on all executions since 2018 while awaiting recommendations from the committee.
Shamala said the families of the incarcerated understand that some of their actions are wrong, while others claim they were wrongly convicted; either way, she is hopeful there will be progress this year.
“I feel the Malaysian government will definitely abolish the death penalty. From the families’ side, they are hoping the sentences of their loved ones can be reduced or they are released for time served,” she said.
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/02/21/families-of-30-death-row-inmates-hopeful-putrajaya-will-abolish-capital-pun/2042954
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 21 — The families of more than 30 death row inmates are hopeful that this year they will get some form of cheer should the Malaysian government decide to abolish the death penalty.
This comes amid Putrajaya’s promise to study proposed alternatives to the death penalty before the end of this month, as mentioned by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law) Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who said a special committee tasked to review the death penalty had briefed him of its findings last month.
Shamala T Manickarajah is a representative of the families who is spearheading the movement along with the various NGOs in order to push for the release, retrial, reduction of sentence, and ultimately, the abolishment of the death penalty of those convicted.
Shamala said she was inspired to help the families after finding out a childhood friend’s husband had been sentenced for drug possession. He has been in jail in Perlis for 13 years.
As part of her efforts, she shared how she helps the families write letters to the various agencies and to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong yearly begging for clemency for the convicted.
She said most of the families did not know how to go about getting clemency so she guided them through the process.
“After repping my friend, I was going to Bentong jail and saw many prisoners crying, waiting for family members so I decided to help them and not just my friend’s husband. I recall in the early days I helped all the makciks and pakciks fill up their forms and wrote letters for them to the prisons and so on. Most of them are poor.
“Last year, we went as a group to see Datuk Liew Vui Keong and he promised to look into our cases but he then passed away. When we went to Putrajaya to the offices, we were told they have our letters and are considering them so we are hoping for the best,” Shamala said during a press conference organised by Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM) today.
“We heard this year the Agong nominated 27 names for pardon. We are praying it is some of us because many of the victims have been in prison for more than a decade.”
In August 2019, the Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration formed the Special Committee to Review Alternative Punishments to the Mandatory Death Penalty to examine alternatives to the mandatory death sentence.
The PH government collapsed in February 2020, however, before the Bill for the abolition of the death penalty could be tabled in the March meeting of Parliament that year.
Wan Junaidi had said that before the government decides on any amendments, it needed to determine the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime while also looking at alternative punishments.
Chiara Sangiorgio, an expert on the death penalty for Amnesty International, said the general public was always hesitant to agree to abolishing the death penalty but studies show that once the rule was in place, society eventually eased into it.
“The global trend shows most countries are abolishing it as it was eight countries in 1958, now it is 108 countries that have abolished the death penalty.
“When it is abolished, public opinion changes despite the initial hesitancy; hence, we need to continue to talk about death penalty and challenge its effectiveness as there is no evidence to show it prevents further crime,” said Chiara.
In addition Chiara said from 2015 to 2020, 10 countries conducted executions and in 2020 Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq made up close to 90 per cent of total reported executions worldwide.
There are eight countries including Malaysia that execute people for drug offences.
“While the direction is clear, Malaysia is at a crossroads but they have the opportunity to make the change. There’s been some progress with the moratorium but what we have learnt when it comes to the use of the death penalty in Malaysia see lot of arbitrariness a lot of unfairness and discrimination.
“The key learning from this is that piecemeal reforms will not work and fixing the unfixable will not work. That’s why we call for a bold stance to be taken by the government of Malaysia and get rid of it once and for all,” she said.
Malaysia has had a moratorium on all executions since 2018 while awaiting recommendations from the committee.
Shamala said the families of the incarcerated understand that some of their actions are wrong, while others claim they were wrongly convicted; either way, she is hopeful there will be progress this year.
“I feel the Malaysian government will definitely abolish the death penalty. From the families’ side, they are hoping the sentences of their loved ones can be reduced or they are released for time served,” she said.
Saturday, 8 January 2022
Asia regional rights bastion Taiwan clings to capital punishment
Source: France 24 (4 January 2022)
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220104-asia-regional-rights-bastion-taiwan-clings-to-capital-punishment
Taipei (AFP) – Taiwan's claim to be a regional bastion of human rights is undermined by its retention of capital punishment, activists say as they campaign to exonerate the island's oldest death row prisoner.
Wang Xin-fu is among 38 inmates in Taiwan awaiting execution, which is carried out by gunshot and without advance notice once all appeals are exhausted.
At 69, Wang is Taiwan's most elderly prisoner on death row and has consistently maintained his innocence.
Rights groups led by the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) have launched a campaign to exonerate Wang, arguing he was wrongfully convicted as a joint offender for the murder of a policeman in 1990.
Wang had been detained in his youth and classified by Taiwan's then authoritarian government as a "thug".
He was sentenced to death for supplying a gun to a "lackey" and ordering him to shoot the victim, based on testimonies from the shooter and witnesses.
But activists claim there are "obvious flaws" in the conviction, from inconsistent testimony, allegations of police torture against a witness, a lack of motive and no fingerprints.
"He is a so-called 'bad guy' but bad guys also have rights. He should not be sentenced for a crime that's not his doing," said Lin Hsin-yi, executive director of TAEDP.
Wang fled to mainland China after learning he was wanted and was only arrested in 2006 upon returning to Taiwan for treatment of an eye ailment.
He was convicted and the supreme court upheld his death sentence in a final ruling in 2011.
Last chance
In November activists appealed to the Control Yuan, Taiwan's top government watchdog, after the office of the top prosecutor rejected their request to file a "special appeal" for Wang -- one of the only ways to challenge a final conviction.
That tactic has previously worked.
In 2018, the Control Yuan recommended the prosecutor-general file a special appeal for death row prisoner Hsieh Chih-hung, who had been jailed for 19 years for murder. That eventually led to his acquittal.
Campaigners point to lengthy death penalty cases in which people were eventually exonerated as evidence of flaws with capital punishment Sam Yeh AFP
Now a free man, Hsieh campaigns for abolishing the death penalty, saying his and other exonerations show the capital punishment system is fallible.
Campaigners point to one of Taiwan's most disputed and lengthy cases, when a court in 2012 quashed the convictions of three men sentenced to death over the murder of a couple two decades ago, after they had undergone a string of trials and retrials.
Another high-profile case came the year before when a military court declared that an air force private executed 14 years previously for the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl was innocent.
"The government thinks carrying out executions is the will of the people but does that really solve the problems?" Hsieh told AFP.
Another death row prisoner that activists campaign for is Chiou Ho-shun, who has been incarcerated for more than three decades.
Popular support
Capital punishment remains popular in Taiwan.
Despite its frequent use against dissidents during decades of martial law, most polls show Taiwanese still support the death penalty even as the island has become one of the most progressive democracies in Asia.
Some 35 prisoners have been put to death since 2010 when Taiwan resumed executions after a four-year hiatus, including two since President Tsai Ing-wen took office in 2016.
Activists have criticised Tsai's government -- which has embraced progressive issues such as gay marriage -- for continuing with the executions.
Tsai has called abolishing capital punishment "a difficult issue to deal with" due to the lack of support from the public that would require "a long process, a long time" to change.
The justice ministry said it restarted a taskforce in 2017 aimed at facilitating gradual abolition and has been studying alternatives while trying to build a public consensus.
"Abolishing the death penalty is an international trend in recent years and it's the long-term direction our country has been working on," the ministry said in a statement to AFP.
Opponents want a moratorium on executions and a timeline for complete abolition.
"If people know there are alternatives they won't necessarily support the death penalty, especially if they are aware of wrongful convictions," activist Lin said.
One alternative is lifetime incarceration on condition that the convict work in prison with part of their wages going to the victims' families as compensation, she added.
All Wang's family can do is wait.
His sister Wen Mei-hui, 60, said she is hopeful her brother will be reunited with her as a free man.
"I am convinced he's innocent," she told AFP. "I hope the authorities will let my brother go home."
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220104-asia-regional-rights-bastion-taiwan-clings-to-capital-punishment
Taipei (AFP) – Taiwan's claim to be a regional bastion of human rights is undermined by its retention of capital punishment, activists say as they campaign to exonerate the island's oldest death row prisoner.
Wang Xin-fu is among 38 inmates in Taiwan awaiting execution, which is carried out by gunshot and without advance notice once all appeals are exhausted.
At 69, Wang is Taiwan's most elderly prisoner on death row and has consistently maintained his innocence.
Rights groups led by the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) have launched a campaign to exonerate Wang, arguing he was wrongfully convicted as a joint offender for the murder of a policeman in 1990.
Wang had been detained in his youth and classified by Taiwan's then authoritarian government as a "thug".
He was sentenced to death for supplying a gun to a "lackey" and ordering him to shoot the victim, based on testimonies from the shooter and witnesses.
But activists claim there are "obvious flaws" in the conviction, from inconsistent testimony, allegations of police torture against a witness, a lack of motive and no fingerprints.
"He is a so-called 'bad guy' but bad guys also have rights. He should not be sentenced for a crime that's not his doing," said Lin Hsin-yi, executive director of TAEDP.
Wang fled to mainland China after learning he was wanted and was only arrested in 2006 upon returning to Taiwan for treatment of an eye ailment.
He was convicted and the supreme court upheld his death sentence in a final ruling in 2011.
Last chance
In November activists appealed to the Control Yuan, Taiwan's top government watchdog, after the office of the top prosecutor rejected their request to file a "special appeal" for Wang -- one of the only ways to challenge a final conviction.
That tactic has previously worked.
In 2018, the Control Yuan recommended the prosecutor-general file a special appeal for death row prisoner Hsieh Chih-hung, who had been jailed for 19 years for murder. That eventually led to his acquittal.
Campaigners point to lengthy death penalty cases in which people were eventually exonerated as evidence of flaws with capital punishment Sam Yeh AFPNow a free man, Hsieh campaigns for abolishing the death penalty, saying his and other exonerations show the capital punishment system is fallible.
Campaigners point to one of Taiwan's most disputed and lengthy cases, when a court in 2012 quashed the convictions of three men sentenced to death over the murder of a couple two decades ago, after they had undergone a string of trials and retrials.
Another high-profile case came the year before when a military court declared that an air force private executed 14 years previously for the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl was innocent.
"The government thinks carrying out executions is the will of the people but does that really solve the problems?" Hsieh told AFP.
Another death row prisoner that activists campaign for is Chiou Ho-shun, who has been incarcerated for more than three decades.
Popular support
Capital punishment remains popular in Taiwan.
Despite its frequent use against dissidents during decades of martial law, most polls show Taiwanese still support the death penalty even as the island has become one of the most progressive democracies in Asia.
Some 35 prisoners have been put to death since 2010 when Taiwan resumed executions after a four-year hiatus, including two since President Tsai Ing-wen took office in 2016.
Activists have criticised Tsai's government -- which has embraced progressive issues such as gay marriage -- for continuing with the executions.
Tsai has called abolishing capital punishment "a difficult issue to deal with" due to the lack of support from the public that would require "a long process, a long time" to change.
The justice ministry said it restarted a taskforce in 2017 aimed at facilitating gradual abolition and has been studying alternatives while trying to build a public consensus.
"Abolishing the death penalty is an international trend in recent years and it's the long-term direction our country has been working on," the ministry said in a statement to AFP.
Opponents want a moratorium on executions and a timeline for complete abolition.
"If people know there are alternatives they won't necessarily support the death penalty, especially if they are aware of wrongful convictions," activist Lin said.
One alternative is lifetime incarceration on condition that the convict work in prison with part of their wages going to the victims' families as compensation, she added.
All Wang's family can do is wait.
His sister Wen Mei-hui, 60, said she is hopeful her brother will be reunited with her as a free man.
"I am convinced he's innocent," she told AFP. "I hope the authorities will let my brother go home."
Friday, 21 February 2020
Japan – If death penalty replaced with life imprisonment without parole, 52% for retaining death penalty
Source: Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (15 February 2020)
https://adpan.org/2020/02/15/japan-if-death-penalty-replaced-with-life-imprisonment-without-parole-52-for-retaining-death-penalty/
In a recent opinion poll by the Cabinet Office in November 2019 on the death penalty, 9.0% of Japanese respondents answered it should be abolished in all cases, while 80.8% said that it was necessary in some cases…
When asked if the death penalty should be kept or abolished in the case that a system of life sentencing without parole was introduced, 35.1% answered that it should be abolished, while 52.0% said it should continue.
Poll Reveals More than 80% Support Death Penalty in Japan
Society Feb 4, 2020
A poll conducted by the Cabinet Office in November 2019 found that 80.8% of Japanese people feel that the death penalty is sometimes necessary.
In a recent opinion poll on the death penalty, 9.0% of Japanese respondents answered it should be abolished in all cases, while 80.8% said that it was necessary in some cases.
The opinion poll was conducted by the Cabinet Office in November 2019, targeted at 3,000 Japanese adults. The poll is held every five years and in the four polls since 2004, support for the death penalty has continuously topped 80%.
Among those who want to see the death penalty abolished (multiple answers possible), the most common, with 50.7%, was that if there is a mistake in the judgment, it cannot be undone.
On the other hand, the most common reason given by those who said that the death penalty was necessary was that the victim’s feelings had to be considered (56.6%).
When asked if the death penalty should be kept or abolished in the case that a system of life sentencing without parole was introduced, 35.1% answered that it should be abolished, while 52.0% said it should continue.
According to the Amnesty International Global Report: Death Sentences and Executions 2018, executions were carried out in 20 countries in 2018, of which the only Group of Seven nations were Japan and the United States. That same year, 15 people were executed in Japan, 13 of whom were Aum Shinrikyō cult leaders who had been involved in the deadly Tokyo subway sarin gas attack in 1995.
https://adpan.org/2020/02/15/japan-if-death-penalty-replaced-with-life-imprisonment-without-parole-52-for-retaining-death-penalty/
In a recent opinion poll by the Cabinet Office in November 2019 on the death penalty, 9.0% of Japanese respondents answered it should be abolished in all cases, while 80.8% said that it was necessary in some cases…
When asked if the death penalty should be kept or abolished in the case that a system of life sentencing without parole was introduced, 35.1% answered that it should be abolished, while 52.0% said it should continue.
Poll Reveals More than 80% Support Death Penalty in Japan
Society Feb 4, 2020
A poll conducted by the Cabinet Office in November 2019 found that 80.8% of Japanese people feel that the death penalty is sometimes necessary.
In a recent opinion poll on the death penalty, 9.0% of Japanese respondents answered it should be abolished in all cases, while 80.8% said that it was necessary in some cases.
The opinion poll was conducted by the Cabinet Office in November 2019, targeted at 3,000 Japanese adults. The poll is held every five years and in the four polls since 2004, support for the death penalty has continuously topped 80%.
Among those who want to see the death penalty abolished (multiple answers possible), the most common, with 50.7%, was that if there is a mistake in the judgment, it cannot be undone.
On the other hand, the most common reason given by those who said that the death penalty was necessary was that the victim’s feelings had to be considered (56.6%).
When asked if the death penalty should be kept or abolished in the case that a system of life sentencing without parole was introduced, 35.1% answered that it should be abolished, while 52.0% said it should continue.
According to the Amnesty International Global Report: Death Sentences and Executions 2018, executions were carried out in 20 countries in 2018, of which the only Group of Seven nations were Japan and the United States. That same year, 15 people were executed in Japan, 13 of whom were Aum Shinrikyō cult leaders who had been involved in the deadly Tokyo subway sarin gas attack in 1995.
Monday, 5 November 2018
Singapore launches survey on death penalty
Source: Rappler (31 October 2018)
https://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/215651-singapore-survey-death-penalty
SINGAPORE – Singapore will gauge public attitudes towards the death penalty in a survey, the interior ministry said Wednesday, October 31, as human rights groups renewed calls for its abolition.
The city-state – which staunchly maintains that capital punishment is a crime deterrent – executed 8 convicts last year, the highest number in a decade, according to official data. They had all committed drug offenses.
The Straits Times said it was the first time that the MHA, which is in charge of the prisons department, is conducting a survey on the subject.
Last week's hanging in Singapore of convicted Malaysian drug trafficker Prabu N Pathmanathan sparked fresh calls to scrap the death penalty, a legacy of British colonial rule.
Neighboring Malaysia, where the cabinet had decided to abolish the death penalty, had asked Singapore to spare the 31-year-old convict on humanitarian grounds.
"The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is conducting the survey to give us a better understanding of Singapore residents' attitudes towards the death penalty," MHA said in a statement to Agence France-Presse (AFP).
It said the survey is part of the government's "regular research on our criminal justice system" and involves citizens and permanent residents.
"Participants were randomly selected based on age, race and gender, for a representative sample of the Singapore resident population," it added.
Some 2,000 respondents will be questioned between October and December by market research consultancy Blackbox Research, which the MHA has commissioned for the project, the newspaper said.
Human rights groups said the survey is unlikely to be a prelude to Singapore softening its position on capital punishment.
"There's been no indication whatsoever that Singapore's position on use of the death penalty is softening," said Phil Robertson, deputy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch.
"One wonders whether the MHA is counting on a survey of public opinion to back their views and provide justification for their continued defiance of the international trend towards abolishing the death penalty," he told AFP.
Previously, the death penalty in Singapore was mandatory for crimes like drug trafficking and murder.
Following a review, legislation was passed in 2012 removing the mandatory provision for drug trafficking and murder under certain circumstances. – Rappler.com
https://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/215651-singapore-survey-death-penalty
SINGAPORE – Singapore will gauge public attitudes towards the death penalty in a survey, the interior ministry said Wednesday, October 31, as human rights groups renewed calls for its abolition.
The city-state – which staunchly maintains that capital punishment is a crime deterrent – executed 8 convicts last year, the highest number in a decade, according to official data. They had all committed drug offenses.
The Straits Times said it was the first time that the MHA, which is in charge of the prisons department, is conducting a survey on the subject.
Last week's hanging in Singapore of convicted Malaysian drug trafficker Prabu N Pathmanathan sparked fresh calls to scrap the death penalty, a legacy of British colonial rule.
Neighboring Malaysia, where the cabinet had decided to abolish the death penalty, had asked Singapore to spare the 31-year-old convict on humanitarian grounds.
"The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is conducting the survey to give us a better understanding of Singapore residents' attitudes towards the death penalty," MHA said in a statement to Agence France-Presse (AFP).
It said the survey is part of the government's "regular research on our criminal justice system" and involves citizens and permanent residents.
"Participants were randomly selected based on age, race and gender, for a representative sample of the Singapore resident population," it added.
Some 2,000 respondents will be questioned between October and December by market research consultancy Blackbox Research, which the MHA has commissioned for the project, the newspaper said.
Human rights groups said the survey is unlikely to be a prelude to Singapore softening its position on capital punishment.
"There's been no indication whatsoever that Singapore's position on use of the death penalty is softening," said Phil Robertson, deputy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch.
"One wonders whether the MHA is counting on a survey of public opinion to back their views and provide justification for their continued defiance of the international trend towards abolishing the death penalty," he told AFP.
Previously, the death penalty in Singapore was mandatory for crimes like drug trafficking and murder.
Following a review, legislation was passed in 2012 removing the mandatory provision for drug trafficking and murder under certain circumstances. – Rappler.com
Friday, 19 February 2016
More Malaysians want end to mandatory death penalty, online poll shows
Source: The Malay Mail Online (18 February 2016)
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/more-malaysians-want-end-to-mandatory-death-penalty-online-poll-shows
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 18 — Over half of Malaysians surveyed in an online poll want the government to scrap the mandatory death sentence that leaves judges with no discretion to hand down lighter punishments.
Conducted by Barisan Nasional (BN) component party Gerakan, the online poll results showed 838 online respondents were in favour of abolishing the mandatory death sentence while 685 respondents disagreed with judges being given the discretion to decide sentences, the party’s Youth wing leader Chai Ko Thing told a news conference today.
“As you can see from the results of votes garnered, the ratio is those who agreed are 55 per cent and those who disagreed is 45 per cent,” the Gerakan Youth Legal Bureau chief said.
The survey results were collected from 1,523 anonymous Internet users over a three-week period from January 22 and February 15 through Gerakan’s online poll site bettermalaysiapoll.org.
The survey posed just one question: “In your opinion, should Malaysia abolish the mandatory death penalty?” and the results were based on the number of “Yes” or “No” clicks obtained.
According to Chai, the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia applies to various crimes such as murder, firearm possession, kidnapping with ransom, waging war against the King and drug offences.
However, he said the government has currently shown its intention to remove the mandatory death penalty for drug-related offences, a move he said is backed by public sentiments based on the poll results.
He said Gerakan had, in 2013, initiated a petition titled “No to death penalty”, adding however the scrapping of mandatory death sentences may be a good starting point and middle path.
“So the party’s stand on this issue is we are going for total abolishment of death sentence, but as a start from the result of this poll — it seems to be divided, maybe to remove mandatory, then we work towards total abolishment of death sentence,” he said.
Chai said Gerakan will present the poll’s findings to de facto law minister Nancy Shukri who is expected to present legal amendments to scrap the mandatory death sentence in Parliament next month.
Nancy had in a written parliamentary statement last November 3 said there are currently 1,022 convicted inmates awaiting execution pending their appeals against the court’s decision, adding that there were 33 executed during the 1998-Oct 2015 period while 127 others received lighter sentences or clemency due to their pleas to the State Pardons Board.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali had last November also said that he wished the courts had discretion on sending convicts to the gallows or otherwise.
Chai said the online #BetterMalaysia poll — which only allows one vote from each device — was created as a platform for the public to express their opinions on topical issues.
The simplified nature of the ongoing polls that does not ask for any details of the respondents is also to cater to Internet-savvy Malaysians especially the youths, Chai said.
He said the third question is now open for voting until March 8, declaring it as: “Does increasing traffic fines serve as an appropriate measure to change the driving attitude of road users and reduce traffic offences?”
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/more-malaysians-want-end-to-mandatory-death-penalty-online-poll-shows
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 18 — Over half of Malaysians surveyed in an online poll want the government to scrap the mandatory death sentence that leaves judges with no discretion to hand down lighter punishments.
Conducted by Barisan Nasional (BN) component party Gerakan, the online poll results showed 838 online respondents were in favour of abolishing the mandatory death sentence while 685 respondents disagreed with judges being given the discretion to decide sentences, the party’s Youth wing leader Chai Ko Thing told a news conference today.
“As you can see from the results of votes garnered, the ratio is those who agreed are 55 per cent and those who disagreed is 45 per cent,” the Gerakan Youth Legal Bureau chief said.
The survey results were collected from 1,523 anonymous Internet users over a three-week period from January 22 and February 15 through Gerakan’s online poll site bettermalaysiapoll.org.
The survey posed just one question: “In your opinion, should Malaysia abolish the mandatory death penalty?” and the results were based on the number of “Yes” or “No” clicks obtained.
According to Chai, the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia applies to various crimes such as murder, firearm possession, kidnapping with ransom, waging war against the King and drug offences.
However, he said the government has currently shown its intention to remove the mandatory death penalty for drug-related offences, a move he said is backed by public sentiments based on the poll results.
He said Gerakan had, in 2013, initiated a petition titled “No to death penalty”, adding however the scrapping of mandatory death sentences may be a good starting point and middle path.
“So the party’s stand on this issue is we are going for total abolishment of death sentence, but as a start from the result of this poll — it seems to be divided, maybe to remove mandatory, then we work towards total abolishment of death sentence,” he said.
Chai said Gerakan will present the poll’s findings to de facto law minister Nancy Shukri who is expected to present legal amendments to scrap the mandatory death sentence in Parliament next month.
Nancy had in a written parliamentary statement last November 3 said there are currently 1,022 convicted inmates awaiting execution pending their appeals against the court’s decision, adding that there were 33 executed during the 1998-Oct 2015 period while 127 others received lighter sentences or clemency due to their pleas to the State Pardons Board.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali had last November also said that he wished the courts had discretion on sending convicts to the gallows or otherwise.
Chai said the online #BetterMalaysia poll — which only allows one vote from each device — was created as a platform for the public to express their opinions on topical issues.
The simplified nature of the ongoing polls that does not ask for any details of the respondents is also to cater to Internet-savvy Malaysians especially the youths, Chai said.
He said the third question is now open for voting until March 8, declaring it as: “Does increasing traffic fines serve as an appropriate measure to change the driving attitude of road users and reduce traffic offences?”
Tuesday, 21 July 2015
Capital punishment: On the way out—with grisly exceptions
Source: The Economist (4 July 2015)
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21656666-few-countries-are-applying-death-penalty-more-freely-global-trend-towards?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/on_the_way_out_with_grisly_exceptions
DEPENDING on where you are, the death penalty may look as if it is in rude health. On June 29th America’s Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma’s use of midazolam, a sedative, in executions—despite evidence that it can fail to cause unconsciousness, leaving those being killed in agony from the lethal drugs with which it is combined. Meanwhile some countries in the Muslim world, notably Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are executing people with increasing enthusiasm. Several others, including Nigeria and Egypt, are sentencing large numbers to death, though most of those sentences are unlikely to be carried out.
Indonesia has executed at least 14 people this year for drug crimes, most of them foreigners. Between 1994 and 2014 it executed at most 30. Using figures from official and human-rights sources, Amnesty International, a watchdog, counts 352 executions in the first four months of this year in Iran, which for its size probably executes more people than anywhere else. The true figure may be much higher. Since ending a moratorium in December, Pakistan has hanged or shot at least 150 people. Saudi Arabia has beheaded or shot 100 already this year, more than in the whole of 2014. In May it advertised for eight new executioners (no experience required).
In Nigeria, which has not carried out an execution since 2013, 54 soldiers have been on death row since December for mutinying. They say they refused to fight against the jihadists of Boko Haram because they had not been adequately armed. Amnesty International says that 589 civilians were sentenced to death last year in Nigeria; 1,500-plus are on death row. Last week another nine joined them after being convicted of blasphemy by a sharia court in the northern city of Kano.
But despite these punitive hot spots, the global total of executions continues to fall—and the trend is towards abolition, whether de jure or de facto. Since December Fiji, Madagascar and Suriname have joined the countries without the death penalty, pushing the total over 100. Another 40 or so still have it, but do not apply it. In December a record 117 countries voted for a moratorium at the UN General Assembly; 37 voted against and 34 abstained. The number voting yes was notably higher than in 2007.
The Western world’s chief executioner, America, is putting fewer people to death, too. Last year it executed 35; even if every execution scheduled for this year were to be carried out, which is unlikely, the total would be no more than 33. Of the 31 states that still have the death penalty, half have executed no one since 2010. In May Nebraska passed a law repealing it, the 19th state to do so—and the first conservative one for many years.
In 1994 80% of Americans said they endorsed the death penalty in principle. The Pew Research Centre reckons that fewer than 60% do so today—and notes that young Americans are less keen than their elders. Blacks are solidly against, as are a small majority of Hispanics. Even the Supreme Court’s recent pro-death-penalty ruling gave comfort to abolitionists by providing a chance to rehearse their case. The death penalty, argued one of the four dissenting judges, Stephen Breyer, is “highly likely” to violate the constitution. Evidence suggested that innocent people, he wrote, had been executed. People on death row had frequently been exonerated. The system was blighted by racial discrimination. Delays between sentencing and executions may violate the eighth amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. And he noted that it is not proven, anyway, to deter crime.
Even China, the global leader, is cooling on executions. The number is a state secret but the Dui Hua Foundation, an American NGO, reckons there were about 2,400 in 2013, the last year it has been able to track. Campaigns against corruption and terrorism mean the fall may not have continued last year. But the long-term trend is steeply down. In 1983 24,000 people are thought to have been executed. In 2012, when Dui Hua put the tally at 12,000, a deputy health minister said the fall had contributed to a shortage of organs for transplant.
One reason is that the president of the Supreme People’s Court, Xiao Yang, has sought to create a more professional and accountable judiciary. Another is that some modernisers are embarrassed by China’s position at the top of this ugly league table. And though most Chinese are still thought to approve of capital punishment for murder, revulsion has grown as the media expose wrongful convictions.
Introducing the latest edition of “The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective”, Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle, two experts at Oxford University, cite a Chinese professor, Zhao Bingzhi, recently conceding that “abolition is an inevitable international tide and trend, as well as a signal showing the broad-mindedness of civilised countries.” It was now, he added, “an international obligation”.
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21656666-few-countries-are-applying-death-penalty-more-freely-global-trend-towards?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/on_the_way_out_with_grisly_exceptions
DEPENDING on where you are, the death penalty may look as if it is in rude health. On June 29th America’s Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma’s use of midazolam, a sedative, in executions—despite evidence that it can fail to cause unconsciousness, leaving those being killed in agony from the lethal drugs with which it is combined. Meanwhile some countries in the Muslim world, notably Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are executing people with increasing enthusiasm. Several others, including Nigeria and Egypt, are sentencing large numbers to death, though most of those sentences are unlikely to be carried out.
Indonesia has executed at least 14 people this year for drug crimes, most of them foreigners. Between 1994 and 2014 it executed at most 30. Using figures from official and human-rights sources, Amnesty International, a watchdog, counts 352 executions in the first four months of this year in Iran, which for its size probably executes more people than anywhere else. The true figure may be much higher. Since ending a moratorium in December, Pakistan has hanged or shot at least 150 people. Saudi Arabia has beheaded or shot 100 already this year, more than in the whole of 2014. In May it advertised for eight new executioners (no experience required).
In Nigeria, which has not carried out an execution since 2013, 54 soldiers have been on death row since December for mutinying. They say they refused to fight against the jihadists of Boko Haram because they had not been adequately armed. Amnesty International says that 589 civilians were sentenced to death last year in Nigeria; 1,500-plus are on death row. Last week another nine joined them after being convicted of blasphemy by a sharia court in the northern city of Kano.
But despite these punitive hot spots, the global total of executions continues to fall—and the trend is towards abolition, whether de jure or de facto. Since December Fiji, Madagascar and Suriname have joined the countries without the death penalty, pushing the total over 100. Another 40 or so still have it, but do not apply it. In December a record 117 countries voted for a moratorium at the UN General Assembly; 37 voted against and 34 abstained. The number voting yes was notably higher than in 2007.
The Western world’s chief executioner, America, is putting fewer people to death, too. Last year it executed 35; even if every execution scheduled for this year were to be carried out, which is unlikely, the total would be no more than 33. Of the 31 states that still have the death penalty, half have executed no one since 2010. In May Nebraska passed a law repealing it, the 19th state to do so—and the first conservative one for many years.
In 1994 80% of Americans said they endorsed the death penalty in principle. The Pew Research Centre reckons that fewer than 60% do so today—and notes that young Americans are less keen than their elders. Blacks are solidly against, as are a small majority of Hispanics. Even the Supreme Court’s recent pro-death-penalty ruling gave comfort to abolitionists by providing a chance to rehearse their case. The death penalty, argued one of the four dissenting judges, Stephen Breyer, is “highly likely” to violate the constitution. Evidence suggested that innocent people, he wrote, had been executed. People on death row had frequently been exonerated. The system was blighted by racial discrimination. Delays between sentencing and executions may violate the eighth amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. And he noted that it is not proven, anyway, to deter crime.
Even China, the global leader, is cooling on executions. The number is a state secret but the Dui Hua Foundation, an American NGO, reckons there were about 2,400 in 2013, the last year it has been able to track. Campaigns against corruption and terrorism mean the fall may not have continued last year. But the long-term trend is steeply down. In 1983 24,000 people are thought to have been executed. In 2012, when Dui Hua put the tally at 12,000, a deputy health minister said the fall had contributed to a shortage of organs for transplant.
One reason is that the president of the Supreme People’s Court, Xiao Yang, has sought to create a more professional and accountable judiciary. Another is that some modernisers are embarrassed by China’s position at the top of this ugly league table. And though most Chinese are still thought to approve of capital punishment for murder, revulsion has grown as the media expose wrongful convictions.
Introducing the latest edition of “The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective”, Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle, two experts at Oxford University, cite a Chinese professor, Zhao Bingzhi, recently conceding that “abolition is an inevitable international tide and trend, as well as a signal showing the broad-mindedness of civilised countries.” It was now, he added, “an international obligation”.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Australia: No death penalty, no shades of grey
By Professor George Williams
From The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 March 2010
The Death Penalty Abolition Bill debated in Federal Parliament last week is the most important initiative on the death penalty for decades. If passed, it will block any state attempt to bring back capital punishment. If it did, the law would be a clear and principled statement that Australia renounces the death penalty now and into the future.
Although the death penalty has been absent from the statute book for 25 years - NSW was the last to eradicate it in 1985 - the new law is needed. The silence in federal law on capital punishment means the death penalty could be reintroduced by any state at any time. This is not only a legal but a political possibility due to statements made over many years by our leaders.
The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, is the latest to try to have it both ways. He said recently he had ''always been against the death penalty'', but went on to say that, in the case of someone ''who cold-bloodedly brought about the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent people'', you ''start to think that maybe the only appropriate punishment is death''.
Abbott is not alone in attempting to combine a principled stand with an inconsistent appeal to raw emotion. Politicians from both sides have taken the same course. The attraction is obvious as it is an appeal to populism.
A 2005 Bulletin poll showed that most Australians supported capital punishment. The Australian National University's 2007 Electoral Survey found that 44 per cent of people thought the death penalty should be reintroduced - 38 per cent disagreed. Australia may not have the death penalty, but a sizeable part of the population supports its return.
This leaves Australian law in an unsatisfactory state and our citizens facing the death penalty overseas in an even worse situation. Equivocation on the death penalty by our leaders, such as by recognising it as appropriate for someone like Saddam Hussein, makes it harder to oppose the execution of Australians overseas.
Regarding the Bali bombers, John Howard, as prime minister, said that if the death penalty ''is what the law of Indonesia provides, that is how things should proceed''. Such statements undermine Australian arguments against the death penalty for Australians tried in Indonesia and elsewhere.
This has been pointed out by Scott Rush, one of the Bali Nine, who is facing death. He wrote to the government: ''I don't want to be in any way political but, from a practical point of view of someone inside on death row, it makes practical and good sense to have a consistent position of opposing the death penalty without discrimination.''
Ambiguous statements by our politicians, combined with the silence in our law on the reintroduction of the death penalty, leave the door ajar for its return in a state. A political leader seeking high office could take the law and order debate to a new low by arguing for the reintroduction of the death penalty in response to a particularly heinous crime.
Such a course has even had federal support. In 2003, Howard called for a national debate on the reintroduction of capital punishment as part of new anti-terrorism laws. While he said that he did not personally support this, he nonetheless suggested the death penalty could be raised by state opposition parties as an election issue.
It is time that Australian law and our leaders spoke against capital punishment wherever it is applied and without reservation. The notion that it is acceptable to execute terrorists but not other criminals, or to execute foreign nationals but not Australians, is morally and logically unsustainable. The value of a life is not contingent on a person's nationality or the nature of their crime. Opposition to the death penalty does not permit such shades of grey. Its removal from the law in Australia and elsewhere must be an unequivocal demand.
Unfortunately, no federal law can prevent the reintroduction of the death penalty by a future federal parliament. Prohibiting its reintroduction at the state level is as far as we can go without changing the constitution.
The death penalty was abolished in Australia decades ago but the battle against capital punishment was left incomplete. The possibility remains that it may return under state law. The Federal Parliament must pass the Death Penalty Abolition Bill to ensure this cannot happen.
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of Law at the University of NSW
From The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 March 2010
The Death Penalty Abolition Bill debated in Federal Parliament last week is the most important initiative on the death penalty for decades. If passed, it will block any state attempt to bring back capital punishment. If it did, the law would be a clear and principled statement that Australia renounces the death penalty now and into the future.
Although the death penalty has been absent from the statute book for 25 years - NSW was the last to eradicate it in 1985 - the new law is needed. The silence in federal law on capital punishment means the death penalty could be reintroduced by any state at any time. This is not only a legal but a political possibility due to statements made over many years by our leaders.
The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, is the latest to try to have it both ways. He said recently he had ''always been against the death penalty'', but went on to say that, in the case of someone ''who cold-bloodedly brought about the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent people'', you ''start to think that maybe the only appropriate punishment is death''.
Abbott is not alone in attempting to combine a principled stand with an inconsistent appeal to raw emotion. Politicians from both sides have taken the same course. The attraction is obvious as it is an appeal to populism.
A 2005 Bulletin poll showed that most Australians supported capital punishment. The Australian National University's 2007 Electoral Survey found that 44 per cent of people thought the death penalty should be reintroduced - 38 per cent disagreed. Australia may not have the death penalty, but a sizeable part of the population supports its return.
This leaves Australian law in an unsatisfactory state and our citizens facing the death penalty overseas in an even worse situation. Equivocation on the death penalty by our leaders, such as by recognising it as appropriate for someone like Saddam Hussein, makes it harder to oppose the execution of Australians overseas.
Regarding the Bali bombers, John Howard, as prime minister, said that if the death penalty ''is what the law of Indonesia provides, that is how things should proceed''. Such statements undermine Australian arguments against the death penalty for Australians tried in Indonesia and elsewhere.
This has been pointed out by Scott Rush, one of the Bali Nine, who is facing death. He wrote to the government: ''I don't want to be in any way political but, from a practical point of view of someone inside on death row, it makes practical and good sense to have a consistent position of opposing the death penalty without discrimination.''
Ambiguous statements by our politicians, combined with the silence in our law on the reintroduction of the death penalty, leave the door ajar for its return in a state. A political leader seeking high office could take the law and order debate to a new low by arguing for the reintroduction of the death penalty in response to a particularly heinous crime.
Such a course has even had federal support. In 2003, Howard called for a national debate on the reintroduction of capital punishment as part of new anti-terrorism laws. While he said that he did not personally support this, he nonetheless suggested the death penalty could be raised by state opposition parties as an election issue.
It is time that Australian law and our leaders spoke against capital punishment wherever it is applied and without reservation. The notion that it is acceptable to execute terrorists but not other criminals, or to execute foreign nationals but not Australians, is morally and logically unsustainable. The value of a life is not contingent on a person's nationality or the nature of their crime. Opposition to the death penalty does not permit such shades of grey. Its removal from the law in Australia and elsewhere must be an unequivocal demand.
Unfortunately, no federal law can prevent the reintroduction of the death penalty by a future federal parliament. Prohibiting its reintroduction at the state level is as far as we can go without changing the constitution.
The death penalty was abolished in Australia decades ago but the battle against capital punishment was left incomplete. The possibility remains that it may return under state law. The Federal Parliament must pass the Death Penalty Abolition Bill to ensure this cannot happen.
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of Law at the University of NSW
Sunday, 28 February 2010
South Korea: News report on constitutional court
Constitutional Court upholds the death penalty
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010
The ruling is expected to revive a debate over the death penalty as South Korea has not carried out a death sentence in 13 years and is classified as “abolitionist in practice”
The Constitutional Court ruled yesterday the death penalty system as prescribed by South Korea’s criminal code is not in violation of the Constitution. However, since six of the nine judges expressed the view that the currently operating system presents misuse and abuse concerns that should be addressed, observers are predicting a revival in the debate over revision and abolition of the death penalty.
In its ruling Thursday on the constitutionality of Article 41 in the Criminal Code, containing clauses regarding the death penalty, the Constitutional Court ruled five to four that the article is constitutional. The request for a constitutionality review was submitted earlier by Gwangu High Court. The court stated that the death penalty system “is a type of punishment anticipated by the Constitution.” It also said, “We cannot view the death penalty system as being in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution specifying human dignity and values, and the individual right to life is also included in the limitations on basic rights as specified by Article 37, Item 2 of the Constitution.”
The court added, “The public good, including the protection of the lives of citizens through crime prevention and the realization of justice, is not lesser than the protection of the right to life of a person who has committed a heinous crime.”
In contrast, the four dissenting judges said, “With the right to life, limitation means taking away an entire life, and it is therefore an absolute fundamental right that cannot be taken away by the Constitution.” They also expressed the view that the death penalty system should be abolished through measures such as the implementation of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Among the judges who ruled in favor of the death penalty’s constitutionality, Justices Min Hyeong-ki and Song Doo-hwan also suggested improvements to the current system. They stated, “It would be desirable to reduce the crimes subject to the death penalty and to amend or abolish the system through legislation rather than through a constitutionality trial.”
Previously, Gwangju High Court requested a constitutionality ruling from the Constitutional Court in September 2008 after receiving a request from an individual, identified by the surname “Oh,” who was charged with murdering four travelers in the costal waters off Boseong County in South Jeolla Province. The court’s decision over the death penalty is its first in over thirteen years. In November 1996, it issued a seven to two ruling affirming the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Currently, there are 57 prisoners in South Korea with confirmed death sentences, while there are two cases, including Oh’s, where the cases are pending in lower courts following a death sentence in the first trial. Ever since carrying out the execution of 23 people in late 1997, however, South Korea has not carried out the death penalty in twelve years and was classified by Amnesty International as “abolitionist in practice.”
In a statement on the Constitutional Court ruling Thursday, the Korean Bar Association called abolition of the death penalty “not simply an improvement of the criminal justice system but an index symbolizing the prestige of the state.”
The Korean Bar Association statement also said, “It is highly regrettable that the Constitutional Court could not go so far as to issue ruling of unconstitutionality when South Korea has been classified as an abolitionist country in practice.”
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010
The ruling is expected to revive a debate over the death penalty as South Korea has not carried out a death sentence in 13 years and is classified as “abolitionist in practice”
The Constitutional Court ruled yesterday the death penalty system as prescribed by South Korea’s criminal code is not in violation of the Constitution. However, since six of the nine judges expressed the view that the currently operating system presents misuse and abuse concerns that should be addressed, observers are predicting a revival in the debate over revision and abolition of the death penalty.
In its ruling Thursday on the constitutionality of Article 41 in the Criminal Code, containing clauses regarding the death penalty, the Constitutional Court ruled five to four that the article is constitutional. The request for a constitutionality review was submitted earlier by Gwangu High Court. The court stated that the death penalty system “is a type of punishment anticipated by the Constitution.” It also said, “We cannot view the death penalty system as being in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution specifying human dignity and values, and the individual right to life is also included in the limitations on basic rights as specified by Article 37, Item 2 of the Constitution.”
The court added, “The public good, including the protection of the lives of citizens through crime prevention and the realization of justice, is not lesser than the protection of the right to life of a person who has committed a heinous crime.”
In contrast, the four dissenting judges said, “With the right to life, limitation means taking away an entire life, and it is therefore an absolute fundamental right that cannot be taken away by the Constitution.” They also expressed the view that the death penalty system should be abolished through measures such as the implementation of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Among the judges who ruled in favor of the death penalty’s constitutionality, Justices Min Hyeong-ki and Song Doo-hwan also suggested improvements to the current system. They stated, “It would be desirable to reduce the crimes subject to the death penalty and to amend or abolish the system through legislation rather than through a constitutionality trial.”
Previously, Gwangju High Court requested a constitutionality ruling from the Constitutional Court in September 2008 after receiving a request from an individual, identified by the surname “Oh,” who was charged with murdering four travelers in the costal waters off Boseong County in South Jeolla Province. The court’s decision over the death penalty is its first in over thirteen years. In November 1996, it issued a seven to two ruling affirming the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Currently, there are 57 prisoners in South Korea with confirmed death sentences, while there are two cases, including Oh’s, where the cases are pending in lower courts following a death sentence in the first trial. Ever since carrying out the execution of 23 people in late 1997, however, South Korea has not carried out the death penalty in twelve years and was classified by Amnesty International as “abolitionist in practice.”
In a statement on the Constitutional Court ruling Thursday, the Korean Bar Association called abolition of the death penalty “not simply an improvement of the criminal justice system but an index symbolizing the prestige of the state.”
The Korean Bar Association statement also said, “It is highly regrettable that the Constitutional Court could not go so far as to issue ruling of unconstitutionality when South Korea has been classified as an abolitionist country in practice.”
South Korea: "Dangerous decision" upholds death penalty
Editorial: Dated logic in Constitutional Court’s death penalty decision
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010
The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that South Korea’s death penalty system is not in violation of the Constitution. Their ruling comes on the heels of the constitutional ruling over the same issue in 1996. At that time, the Constitutional Court said, “Although the death penalty system should be abolished, it is premature to annul the system at this time.”
Since the 1996 ruling, 38 countries around world have joined the list of countries that have abolished the death penalty, bringing the total number of countries who have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice to 139. Abolishing the death penalty is also a precondition of joining the European Union. The abolition of the death penalty has now become a measuring stick to determine which countries are advanced in human rights.
There is no reason for South Korea to lag far behind in this trend. South Korea has been recognized by Amnesty International as “an abolitionist in practice.” Many Korean citizens feel pride when reflecting upon our society’s development and the further enhancement of our collective consciousness. This new era has not changed direction, but rather the Constitutional Court has chosen to remain in the past. We cannot help but to ask whether the Constitutional Court’s decision reflects their attempt to read the minds of conservative factions in our society.
The logic that the Constitutional Court issued a decision in line with the Constitution is dated. The Constitutional Court justices issuing the majority opinion stated, “The death penalty is a legitimate punishment for heinous crimes, and by instating the death penalty, we can prevent those types of crimes from occurring.” The argument that capital punishment is related to crime prevention is an outdated theory. There is a wide consensus that it is difficult to prevent crimes through instating heavy-handed punishments. The possibility also exists that authorities could wield power as they wish using the logic of “proper punishment.”
In fact, current law in South Korea classifies 110 crimes in 20 laws as the subject to a death penalty sentence, however, heinous crimes comprise just 12 of the crimes including murder with intent. Because other crimes subject to a death penalty sentence include political offenses, criminal ideological violations, corporate offenses and administrative offenses, the possibility for serious abuse of the application of the death penalty exists.
We think the Constitutional Court has made a dangerous decision to uphold the death penalty, which will result in the restriction of basic human dignity rights. The Constitutional Court argued that there is no stipulation addressing the recognition of these types of absolute basic human rights. However, restrictions upon the right to life mean that the government can deprive a person of their life as a whole. In extenuating circumstances, no one can bring back a life that was wrongfully terminated by an incorrect application of the death penalty. Therefore, it is our belief that the death penalty infringes upon the basic right to life and is unconstitutional.
The justices who voted to uphold the death penalty, however, also demanded revisions to the death penalty system. This means that they also agree that it would be improper to allow the current death penalty system to continue as is. The lawmakers of the National Assembly should revise related law by accepting the spirit of the Court’s decision. The government also should also continue its past practice and refrain from executing prisoners on death row.
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010
The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that South Korea’s death penalty system is not in violation of the Constitution. Their ruling comes on the heels of the constitutional ruling over the same issue in 1996. At that time, the Constitutional Court said, “Although the death penalty system should be abolished, it is premature to annul the system at this time.”
Since the 1996 ruling, 38 countries around world have joined the list of countries that have abolished the death penalty, bringing the total number of countries who have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice to 139. Abolishing the death penalty is also a precondition of joining the European Union. The abolition of the death penalty has now become a measuring stick to determine which countries are advanced in human rights.
There is no reason for South Korea to lag far behind in this trend. South Korea has been recognized by Amnesty International as “an abolitionist in practice.” Many Korean citizens feel pride when reflecting upon our society’s development and the further enhancement of our collective consciousness. This new era has not changed direction, but rather the Constitutional Court has chosen to remain in the past. We cannot help but to ask whether the Constitutional Court’s decision reflects their attempt to read the minds of conservative factions in our society.
The logic that the Constitutional Court issued a decision in line with the Constitution is dated. The Constitutional Court justices issuing the majority opinion stated, “The death penalty is a legitimate punishment for heinous crimes, and by instating the death penalty, we can prevent those types of crimes from occurring.” The argument that capital punishment is related to crime prevention is an outdated theory. There is a wide consensus that it is difficult to prevent crimes through instating heavy-handed punishments. The possibility also exists that authorities could wield power as they wish using the logic of “proper punishment.”
In fact, current law in South Korea classifies 110 crimes in 20 laws as the subject to a death penalty sentence, however, heinous crimes comprise just 12 of the crimes including murder with intent. Because other crimes subject to a death penalty sentence include political offenses, criminal ideological violations, corporate offenses and administrative offenses, the possibility for serious abuse of the application of the death penalty exists.
We think the Constitutional Court has made a dangerous decision to uphold the death penalty, which will result in the restriction of basic human dignity rights. The Constitutional Court argued that there is no stipulation addressing the recognition of these types of absolute basic human rights. However, restrictions upon the right to life mean that the government can deprive a person of their life as a whole. In extenuating circumstances, no one can bring back a life that was wrongfully terminated by an incorrect application of the death penalty. Therefore, it is our belief that the death penalty infringes upon the basic right to life and is unconstitutional.
The justices who voted to uphold the death penalty, however, also demanded revisions to the death penalty system. This means that they also agree that it would be improper to allow the current death penalty system to continue as is. The lawmakers of the National Assembly should revise related law by accepting the spirit of the Court’s decision. The government also should also continue its past practice and refrain from executing prisoners on death row.
South Korea: Up to parliament to abolish death penalty
Capital Punishment
Editorial: Legislature Should Do What Judicature Failed to Do
From: The Korea Times, 26 February 2010
The Constitutional Court's ruling to uphold the death penalty Thursday shows Koreans' consciousness advances frustratingly slower than their economic development.
In a 5-4 decision, the top court said in effect that although capital punishment should be abolished someday, it is still too early to do so now. It was the same logic the nation's highest tribunal used 13 years ago when it also ruled the state's taking of citizens' lives constitutional.
Equally anachronistic are the reasons the court cited for retaining the ultimate penalty. The majority of judges wrote that capital punishment is the "rightful reward" for and "effective prevention" of heinous crimes. But penal studies both here and abroad have long found the death penalty neither deters crime nor provides a sense of closure for victims' families.
Even more importantly, there remains an unforgivable ― and irrevocable ― risk of executing an innocent person, which explains why the right to life must not be limited in any way and under any excuses, despite what the judges said. This is especially true in Korea, where there are as many as 110 offenses punishable by death with only 12 of them being atrocious crimes, and most others, political, economic and ideological ones.
All this testifies to why 139 countries have either completely or partially done away with capital punishment. Korea for its part has stopped executions since the inauguration of former President Kim Dae-jung, himself a one-time death-row convict, in 1998.
Considering the world's three biggest economies ― the United States, Japan and China ― are among the 58 countries that retain the death penalty, this seems to have more to do with national dignity than economy. The EU has made its abolition as a precondition for membership.
However Koreans may think their country is advanced and prestigious, it would appear as little more than another brutal state to people in the old continent, the birthplace of democracy and modern civilization.
It is hard to deny the top tribunal's ruling reflects the popular sentiment here, which reportedly favors the death penalty at a ratio of 6 to 4. Not many countries, however, have done away with death penalty following public opinion. When France abolished capital punishment in 1981, for example, 60 percent of its people supported it. A decade later, the same percentage approved its abolition.
Probably in light of all these circumstances, the court referred this issue to the court of the legislature. The National Assembly has toyed with its abolition throughout the past decade but taken no concrete action. It is time for the Assembly, especially the governing Grand National Party, to take the lead in the repealing of laws on capital punishment, if for no other reason than lifting the "national prestige," as the Lee Myung-bak administration has been addressing so emphatically.
Koreans should also realize this is not a matter between death-row convicts and the rest of the citizens but an issue between the state power and all citizens. It was only some decades ago that dictatorial regimes committed "judicial murders" of political dissidents and other innocent people under false charges of state subversion.
Editorial: Legislature Should Do What Judicature Failed to Do
From: The Korea Times, 26 February 2010
The Constitutional Court's ruling to uphold the death penalty Thursday shows Koreans' consciousness advances frustratingly slower than their economic development.
In a 5-4 decision, the top court said in effect that although capital punishment should be abolished someday, it is still too early to do so now. It was the same logic the nation's highest tribunal used 13 years ago when it also ruled the state's taking of citizens' lives constitutional.
Equally anachronistic are the reasons the court cited for retaining the ultimate penalty. The majority of judges wrote that capital punishment is the "rightful reward" for and "effective prevention" of heinous crimes. But penal studies both here and abroad have long found the death penalty neither deters crime nor provides a sense of closure for victims' families.
Even more importantly, there remains an unforgivable ― and irrevocable ― risk of executing an innocent person, which explains why the right to life must not be limited in any way and under any excuses, despite what the judges said. This is especially true in Korea, where there are as many as 110 offenses punishable by death with only 12 of them being atrocious crimes, and most others, political, economic and ideological ones.
All this testifies to why 139 countries have either completely or partially done away with capital punishment. Korea for its part has stopped executions since the inauguration of former President Kim Dae-jung, himself a one-time death-row convict, in 1998.
Considering the world's three biggest economies ― the United States, Japan and China ― are among the 58 countries that retain the death penalty, this seems to have more to do with national dignity than economy. The EU has made its abolition as a precondition for membership.
However Koreans may think their country is advanced and prestigious, it would appear as little more than another brutal state to people in the old continent, the birthplace of democracy and modern civilization.
It is hard to deny the top tribunal's ruling reflects the popular sentiment here, which reportedly favors the death penalty at a ratio of 6 to 4. Not many countries, however, have done away with death penalty following public opinion. When France abolished capital punishment in 1981, for example, 60 percent of its people supported it. A decade later, the same percentage approved its abolition.
Probably in light of all these circumstances, the court referred this issue to the court of the legislature. The National Assembly has toyed with its abolition throughout the past decade but taken no concrete action. It is time for the Assembly, especially the governing Grand National Party, to take the lead in the repealing of laws on capital punishment, if for no other reason than lifting the "national prestige," as the Lee Myung-bak administration has been addressing so emphatically.
Koreans should also realize this is not a matter between death-row convicts and the rest of the citizens but an issue between the state power and all citizens. It was only some decades ago that dictatorial regimes committed "judicial murders" of political dissidents and other innocent people under false charges of state subversion.
South Korea: "TIme to move" against death penalty
EDITORIAL: Capital punishment
From: The Korea Herald, 27 February 2010
In its second ever decision on capital punishment, the Constitutional Court ruled that capital punishment is constitutional.
The Constitutional Court's ruling on a petition filed by a provincial appeal court at the request of a 72-year-old man convicted of murdering four people upheld that the death penalty is a necessary punishment to protect the lives of the majority.
However, the 5-4 decision showed the Constitutional Court moving toward the abolition of the death penalty. In the 1996 ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment, the court had ruled 7-2 to uphold the system. At the time, the court said that it was not proper to immediately abolish the capital punishment system, "given our current culture and reality." That statement had indicated that the Constitutional Court was in favor of abolishing the death penalty over time. Apparently, 13 years was not enough time to move away from the capital punishment system, which its opponents claim is state-sanctioned murder.
However, two of the concurring judges suggested gradually fixing the capital punishment system by limiting the types of crimes that are punishable by the death penalty and also reflecting the social milieu of the time. They said it would be preferable to resolve the issue through legislation at the National Assembly.
Indeed, Thursday's ruling is significant in that it asked the National Assembly to take up the issue. Given the controversial nature of the death penalty - both its opponents and supporters are unequivocal about their stance on the issue - the National Assembly is an appropriate forum for a meaningful discussion of the matter.
A 2006 National Human Rights Commission report said that about 70 percent of the population favored the death penalty. The proponents of capital punishment claim that with some 1,000 murder cases occurring every year, the death penalty should be maintained as a deterrent against heinous crimes.
However, the decision on whether to maintain the capital punishment system or to abolish it should not be left up to public opinion. Our National Assembly has failed to deal with laws on many controversial social issues - including abortion, adultery and the death penalty. Many of these matters have been brought to the courts for the Constitutional Court to decide. The Constitutional Court, on the other hand, has suggested that these matters should be decided by the legislature. The National Assembly should take a proactive position and not wait for the Constitutional Court's next ruling on the death penalty system.
Since President Kim Dae-jung - who was himself sentenced to death in 1980 but later pardoned - took office in February 1998, there have been no executions in this country. While there are 59 inmates on death row, Amnesty International in 2007 categorized Korea as having "virtually abolished capital punishment."
There are two bills on abolishing capital punishment that are languishing at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly. The lawmakers should start deliberating on this crucial issue that is often seen as a mark of a country's level of civilization.
Around the world 95 countries have abolished capital punishment while 58 countries maintain the system. Another 35 countries maintain the death penalty but have not carried out an execution for 10 years or more. Clearly, the trend is toward the abolition of the capital punishment. The time has come for Korea to make the move toward abolishing capital punishment.
From: The Korea Herald, 27 February 2010
In its second ever decision on capital punishment, the Constitutional Court ruled that capital punishment is constitutional.
The Constitutional Court's ruling on a petition filed by a provincial appeal court at the request of a 72-year-old man convicted of murdering four people upheld that the death penalty is a necessary punishment to protect the lives of the majority.
However, the 5-4 decision showed the Constitutional Court moving toward the abolition of the death penalty. In the 1996 ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment, the court had ruled 7-2 to uphold the system. At the time, the court said that it was not proper to immediately abolish the capital punishment system, "given our current culture and reality." That statement had indicated that the Constitutional Court was in favor of abolishing the death penalty over time. Apparently, 13 years was not enough time to move away from the capital punishment system, which its opponents claim is state-sanctioned murder.
However, two of the concurring judges suggested gradually fixing the capital punishment system by limiting the types of crimes that are punishable by the death penalty and also reflecting the social milieu of the time. They said it would be preferable to resolve the issue through legislation at the National Assembly.
Indeed, Thursday's ruling is significant in that it asked the National Assembly to take up the issue. Given the controversial nature of the death penalty - both its opponents and supporters are unequivocal about their stance on the issue - the National Assembly is an appropriate forum for a meaningful discussion of the matter.
A 2006 National Human Rights Commission report said that about 70 percent of the population favored the death penalty. The proponents of capital punishment claim that with some 1,000 murder cases occurring every year, the death penalty should be maintained as a deterrent against heinous crimes.
However, the decision on whether to maintain the capital punishment system or to abolish it should not be left up to public opinion. Our National Assembly has failed to deal with laws on many controversial social issues - including abortion, adultery and the death penalty. Many of these matters have been brought to the courts for the Constitutional Court to decide. The Constitutional Court, on the other hand, has suggested that these matters should be decided by the legislature. The National Assembly should take a proactive position and not wait for the Constitutional Court's next ruling on the death penalty system.
Since President Kim Dae-jung - who was himself sentenced to death in 1980 but later pardoned - took office in February 1998, there have been no executions in this country. While there are 59 inmates on death row, Amnesty International in 2007 categorized Korea as having "virtually abolished capital punishment."
There are two bills on abolishing capital punishment that are languishing at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly. The lawmakers should start deliberating on this crucial issue that is often seen as a mark of a country's level of civilization.
Around the world 95 countries have abolished capital punishment while 58 countries maintain the system. Another 35 countries maintain the death penalty but have not carried out an execution for 10 years or more. Clearly, the trend is toward the abolition of the capital punishment. The time has come for Korea to make the move toward abolishing capital punishment.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
South Korea: 'Disappointment' at lack of change
[Interview] "S. Korea slips in being first in Asia to abolish death penalty"
Amnesty International’s Go Euntae talks on not wanting a ‘Santa Claus’ Amnesty International
From The Hankyoreh, 10 October 2009
"There are two kinds of countries in this world. One is the kind that does not kill citizens regardless, and the other is the kind that will kill its citizens at any time according to the circumstances."
Go Euntae, a member of Amnesty International’s international executive committee, sat down with the Hankyoreh on Friday, on the eve of the World Day Against the Death Penalty, Oct. 10. Go said, "If a state has the right to take a citizens’ life, individuals will always be subordinated to the state." He added, "The death penalty is a yardstick that fundamentally determines the relationship between the state and the individual."
The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty has designated Oct. 10 as the World Day Against the Death Penalty and holds related events on that day throughout the world. In South Korea, a commemorative ceremony is being held at Indiespace, Joongang Cinema on Jeo-dong 1-ga Street in Seoul’s Jung-gu district.
Until recently, Go had served as director of Amnesty International’s Korea branch since 2006, and had also served from 2002 and 2004. In August, he was elected the first Korean member of the Amnesty International’s international executive committee. This came 12 years after the last figure from the Asia region had been elected to the committee in 1997. The committee consists of nine members who serve four-year terms, during which time they represent Amnesty International activities throughout the world and execute decisions. Go has mainly carried out his duties in South Korea, but he also visits the organization’s headquarters in London, Great Britain, for quarterly meetings.
In the interview, Go expressed his concern about the fact that discussion of applying the death penalty has been surfacing again recently despite South Korea being an "abolitionist country in practice." South Korea received this classification by Amnesty International in 2007, ten years after the last time the death penalty had been carried out, however, the Constitutional Court has still not made any decision on the constitutionality of the death penalty, nor has there been any legislative activity in the National Assembly to abolish it. Justice Minister Lee Kwi-nam said in his National Assembly confirmation hearing last month that he would "seriously examine whether or not to carry out the death penalty."
Regarding recent public opinion in some quarters calling for the execution of 57-year-old child rapist Cho Du-sun, Go said that the death penalty should not be viewed as a solution in this case. "Rather than a method in which the wrongdoer is separated from ‘us, the innocent ones’ and met with severe punishment, I think it more proper to question why a person like that was able to commit a crime like that in our society," he observed.
Go also communicated growing concerns among the international community. "In the international human rights community, there were high hopes that South Korea would be the first to abolish the death penalty in Asia, which is seen as a ‘hole in global human rights,’" he said. "However, recently, disappointment has been growing within the international community," he added. Some 1,838 executions were carried out in Asian countries including China and Japan in 2008, accounting for 76.9 percent of all executions worldwide.
When asked what role he hopes Amnesty International will play, Go said, "I do not want to make a ‘Santa Claus’ Amnesty International that remains off in the distance and then pops in once a year to give presents. I want to make the ‘guy next door’ Amnesty International."
Amnesty International’s Go Euntae talks on not wanting a ‘Santa Claus’ Amnesty International
From The Hankyoreh, 10 October 2009
"There are two kinds of countries in this world. One is the kind that does not kill citizens regardless, and the other is the kind that will kill its citizens at any time according to the circumstances."
Go Euntae, a member of Amnesty International’s international executive committee, sat down with the Hankyoreh on Friday, on the eve of the World Day Against the Death Penalty, Oct. 10. Go said, "If a state has the right to take a citizens’ life, individuals will always be subordinated to the state." He added, "The death penalty is a yardstick that fundamentally determines the relationship between the state and the individual."
The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty has designated Oct. 10 as the World Day Against the Death Penalty and holds related events on that day throughout the world. In South Korea, a commemorative ceremony is being held at Indiespace, Joongang Cinema on Jeo-dong 1-ga Street in Seoul’s Jung-gu district.
Until recently, Go had served as director of Amnesty International’s Korea branch since 2006, and had also served from 2002 and 2004. In August, he was elected the first Korean member of the Amnesty International’s international executive committee. This came 12 years after the last figure from the Asia region had been elected to the committee in 1997. The committee consists of nine members who serve four-year terms, during which time they represent Amnesty International activities throughout the world and execute decisions. Go has mainly carried out his duties in South Korea, but he also visits the organization’s headquarters in London, Great Britain, for quarterly meetings.
In the interview, Go expressed his concern about the fact that discussion of applying the death penalty has been surfacing again recently despite South Korea being an "abolitionist country in practice." South Korea received this classification by Amnesty International in 2007, ten years after the last time the death penalty had been carried out, however, the Constitutional Court has still not made any decision on the constitutionality of the death penalty, nor has there been any legislative activity in the National Assembly to abolish it. Justice Minister Lee Kwi-nam said in his National Assembly confirmation hearing last month that he would "seriously examine whether or not to carry out the death penalty."
Regarding recent public opinion in some quarters calling for the execution of 57-year-old child rapist Cho Du-sun, Go said that the death penalty should not be viewed as a solution in this case. "Rather than a method in which the wrongdoer is separated from ‘us, the innocent ones’ and met with severe punishment, I think it more proper to question why a person like that was able to commit a crime like that in our society," he observed.
Go also communicated growing concerns among the international community. "In the international human rights community, there were high hopes that South Korea would be the first to abolish the death penalty in Asia, which is seen as a ‘hole in global human rights,’" he said. "However, recently, disappointment has been growing within the international community," he added. Some 1,838 executions were carried out in Asian countries including China and Japan in 2008, accounting for 76.9 percent of all executions worldwide.
When asked what role he hopes Amnesty International will play, Go said, "I do not want to make a ‘Santa Claus’ Amnesty International that remains off in the distance and then pops in once a year to give presents. I want to make the ‘guy next door’ Amnesty International."
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
PNG, Solomons advised against death penalty
No death penalty, expert advises PNG, Solomons
From ABC Radio Australia, 20 August 2009
Last Updated: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:18:00 +1000
An Australian criminologist says Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea should not consider introducing the death penalty against violent crimes.
Both countries have high rates of crime and are considering capital punishment.
Professor Paul Wilson, from Australia's Bond University, in Queensland, says there is evidence in research from across the world that the death penalty does not reduce the rate of murder and violent crime.
He says despite this, many politicians choose to call for its introduction because they are aware there may be people in their electorates who could support it.
Professor Wilson has told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat more needs to be done to study patterns of crime in PNG and the Solomons to determine better prevention and appropriate penalties.
"If you are going to reduce the murder rate or violence rate, you have to first of all analyse exactly how the violence is occuring, by whom, at what time, where, and the motiviationsm" he said.
"And that is a fairly substantial research job and then you have to apply quite well-known crime prevention methods, which will vary according to the location.
"You work it with a combination of zero-type policing."
From ABC Radio Australia, 20 August 2009
Last Updated: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:18:00 +1000
An Australian criminologist says Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea should not consider introducing the death penalty against violent crimes.
Both countries have high rates of crime and are considering capital punishment.
Professor Paul Wilson, from Australia's Bond University, in Queensland, says there is evidence in research from across the world that the death penalty does not reduce the rate of murder and violent crime.
He says despite this, many politicians choose to call for its introduction because they are aware there may be people in their electorates who could support it.
Professor Wilson has told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat more needs to be done to study patterns of crime in PNG and the Solomons to determine better prevention and appropriate penalties.
"If you are going to reduce the murder rate or violence rate, you have to first of all analyse exactly how the violence is occuring, by whom, at what time, where, and the motiviationsm" he said.
"And that is a fairly substantial research job and then you have to apply quite well-known crime prevention methods, which will vary according to the location.
"You work it with a combination of zero-type policing."
Saturday, 28 February 2009
South Korea: Murders spark debate on death penalty
[Please note: long post]
Police investigations into an alleged serial killer in South Korea have sparked renewed debate about the use of death sentences and the execution of convicted murderers.
Ministers from the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) have decided on a series of "countermeasures" against crime, including increased sentences and a genetic database, and called for the government to retain and use the death penalty for the worst offenders.
According to The Korea Herald, Kang Ho-soon allegedly confessed to killing seven women in the past two years and "calmly demonstrated his crimes, without signs of regret or agitation" during a two-day investigation at the crime scene in early February.
The maximum penalty for murder with rape is life or the death penalty.
GNP parliamentarian Park Jun-seon said the death penalty was the "only way'" to deal with criminals such as Kang.
"I believe every South Korean citizen demands the serial killer be put to death," he said.
"Maintaining the death penalty would help reduce such crimes and serve as a 'last resort' in keeping those gravely undermining social safety away from society permanently."
The party's 'first policy coordinator' Chang Yoon-seok said he had told the government that public opinion was in favour of enforcing the death penalty.
"I communicated to the government that there is high level of public opinion that the death penalty must be enforced," Chang said, according to The Hankyoreh.
But he said there was no agreement with the government on whether this would occur.
The Justice Ministry recently released the results of a survey that found more than 60 per cent support for the death penalty.
The survey of 3000 people over 19 years old found 64 per cent of respondents were in favor of a resumption of executions. About 18 per cent of those surveyed said they were against it and 17 per cent were undecided.
'Executions no solution'
Human rights organisations and religious groups condemned calls for a resumption of executions.
"The prevention of violent crimes is not a problem solved through the execution of violent laws," a representative of the Catholic Human Rights Committee said.
Enforcement of the death penalty and the establishment of a gene bank would represent "a major step backward for the human rights policy that South Korea has been improving all this time".
The country's human rights watchdog expressed its concern about the debate and called for the complete abolition of laws providing for the death penalty.
"South Korea needs to scrap the death penalty completely to become an advanced nation in terms of human rights protection," the National Human Rights Commission of Korea said in a statement.
"The commission is concerned about the resumption of the death penalty being discussed across society lately. South Korea would degenerate into a backward country in terms of rights protection if capital punishment is resumed.
"A mature society does not obtain security by sacrificing human rights and human life."
Amnesty International's Secretary-General Irene Khan wrote to President Lee Myung-bak acknowledging public concern over the murders but urging him not to return to carrying out executions.
"I would like to stress that our opposition to the death penalty does not in any way distract from the sympathy for the victims of violent crimes and their loved ones," she wrote.
"However, Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and considers it a violation to the right to life and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment."
She said a resumption of executions would run counter to a "clear international trend toward abolition of the death penalty".
"I urge the Government of South Korea to signal its embrace of the international trend to move away from using the death penalty and to refrain from reintroducing executions," she said.
Abolitionist in practice
Justice Ministry figures show there are currently 58 people on death row in South Korea, but the country has not carried out any executions for over 10 years.
Amnesty International declared in December 2007 that South Korea was therefore an abolitionist country "in practice".
The last executions in South Korea were on 30 December 1997, when 18 men and 5 women were hanged in prisons across the country. The mass hangings were the first executions in the country for two years.
Kim Dae-Jung, himself a former death row inmate sentenced to die on trumped up political charges, began the practice of not carrying out executions when he took office in 1988.
The constitutional court is set to consider a challenge to the death penalty in June.
Justice bureaucracy sceptical
The Korea Herald reported that the Justice Ministry was sceptical about carrying out death sentences again, despite public support for it.
"In the past scandalous serial murder cases, public opinion also demanded the death of the killers, but it was just not enough to resist the worldwide legal trend of capital punishment abolishment," the paper quoted an unnamed Justice Ministry official.
"The very nature of the death sentence is controversial, and Kang's case alone will probably not reverse the present flow of criminal punishment."
The ministry has previously opposed moves in the National Assembly to abolish the death penalty, but in February 2006 it announced it was reviewing the death penalty and considering replacing executions with life imprisonment.
But in April 2008, the ministry announced it would seek sentences of life imprisonment or the death penalty for the sexually assault and murder of children under 13 years of age.
Related stories:
South Korea: Challenge to death penalty law -- 13 October 2008
South Korea: Death penalty for child murders? -- 09 April 2008
South Korea: Renewed calls for abolition -- 12 October 2007
South Korea: death penalty not on 'roadmap' -- 19 February 2007
Call for South Korea to show 'leadership' -- 27 June 2006
South Korea death penalty hearing -- 10 April 2006
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 06 March 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February 2006
Police investigations into an alleged serial killer in South Korea have sparked renewed debate about the use of death sentences and the execution of convicted murderers.
Ministers from the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) have decided on a series of "countermeasures" against crime, including increased sentences and a genetic database, and called for the government to retain and use the death penalty for the worst offenders.
According to The Korea Herald, Kang Ho-soon allegedly confessed to killing seven women in the past two years and "calmly demonstrated his crimes, without signs of regret or agitation" during a two-day investigation at the crime scene in early February.
The maximum penalty for murder with rape is life or the death penalty.
GNP parliamentarian Park Jun-seon said the death penalty was the "only way'" to deal with criminals such as Kang.
"I believe every South Korean citizen demands the serial killer be put to death," he said.
"Maintaining the death penalty would help reduce such crimes and serve as a 'last resort' in keeping those gravely undermining social safety away from society permanently."
The party's 'first policy coordinator' Chang Yoon-seok said he had told the government that public opinion was in favour of enforcing the death penalty.
"I communicated to the government that there is high level of public opinion that the death penalty must be enforced," Chang said, according to The Hankyoreh.
But he said there was no agreement with the government on whether this would occur.
The Justice Ministry recently released the results of a survey that found more than 60 per cent support for the death penalty.
The survey of 3000 people over 19 years old found 64 per cent of respondents were in favor of a resumption of executions. About 18 per cent of those surveyed said they were against it and 17 per cent were undecided.
'Executions no solution'
Human rights organisations and religious groups condemned calls for a resumption of executions.
"The prevention of violent crimes is not a problem solved through the execution of violent laws," a representative of the Catholic Human Rights Committee said.
Enforcement of the death penalty and the establishment of a gene bank would represent "a major step backward for the human rights policy that South Korea has been improving all this time".
The country's human rights watchdog expressed its concern about the debate and called for the complete abolition of laws providing for the death penalty.
"South Korea needs to scrap the death penalty completely to become an advanced nation in terms of human rights protection," the National Human Rights Commission of Korea said in a statement.
"The commission is concerned about the resumption of the death penalty being discussed across society lately. South Korea would degenerate into a backward country in terms of rights protection if capital punishment is resumed.
"A mature society does not obtain security by sacrificing human rights and human life."
Amnesty International's Secretary-General Irene Khan wrote to President Lee Myung-bak acknowledging public concern over the murders but urging him not to return to carrying out executions.
"I would like to stress that our opposition to the death penalty does not in any way distract from the sympathy for the victims of violent crimes and their loved ones," she wrote.
"However, Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and considers it a violation to the right to life and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment."
She said a resumption of executions would run counter to a "clear international trend toward abolition of the death penalty".
"I urge the Government of South Korea to signal its embrace of the international trend to move away from using the death penalty and to refrain from reintroducing executions," she said.
Abolitionist in practice
Justice Ministry figures show there are currently 58 people on death row in South Korea, but the country has not carried out any executions for over 10 years.
Amnesty International declared in December 2007 that South Korea was therefore an abolitionist country "in practice".
The last executions in South Korea were on 30 December 1997, when 18 men and 5 women were hanged in prisons across the country. The mass hangings were the first executions in the country for two years.
Kim Dae-Jung, himself a former death row inmate sentenced to die on trumped up political charges, began the practice of not carrying out executions when he took office in 1988.
The constitutional court is set to consider a challenge to the death penalty in June.
Justice bureaucracy sceptical
The Korea Herald reported that the Justice Ministry was sceptical about carrying out death sentences again, despite public support for it.
"In the past scandalous serial murder cases, public opinion also demanded the death of the killers, but it was just not enough to resist the worldwide legal trend of capital punishment abolishment," the paper quoted an unnamed Justice Ministry official.
"The very nature of the death sentence is controversial, and Kang's case alone will probably not reverse the present flow of criminal punishment."
The ministry has previously opposed moves in the National Assembly to abolish the death penalty, but in February 2006 it announced it was reviewing the death penalty and considering replacing executions with life imprisonment.
But in April 2008, the ministry announced it would seek sentences of life imprisonment or the death penalty for the sexually assault and murder of children under 13 years of age.
Related stories:
South Korea: Challenge to death penalty law -- 13 October 2008
South Korea: Death penalty for child murders? -- 09 April 2008
South Korea: Renewed calls for abolition -- 12 October 2007
South Korea: death penalty not on 'roadmap' -- 19 February 2007
Call for South Korea to show 'leadership' -- 27 June 2006
South Korea death penalty hearing -- 10 April 2006
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 06 March 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February 2006
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
The wrong signal for Asia’s firing squads
Comment by Tim Goodwin
When he was opposition leader, Kevin Rudd was derided by the government for his 'me too' strategy in the 2007 election campaign, after he promised to implement several Coalition initiatives.
The strategy successfully neutralised areas of government advantage, clearing the air for Labor to focus on key areas of difference such as climate change.
While human rights barely figured in the campaign, it was expected a Labor government under Rudd would strike a more progressive path, albeit within the limits of his socially conservative outlook. And in the main it has done so, making changes from abolishing temporary protection visas to legislation removing commonwealth discrimination against same sex-couples.
As Attorney-General Robert McClelland said in his prepared speech for a conference at the Melbourne Law School last Friday: "I think it is fair to say that Australia is 'back in business' when it comes to human rights."
In one critical area of human rights policy, Kevin Rudd has been pursuing business of his own. His takeover of coalition policy on the death penalty was slower than the earlier acquisitions, but no less successful.
Last week he took full control of John Howard's position and committed to the double standards that will dog him as they dogged his predecessor. This hypocrisy will undermine the Rudd government’s efforts to save the lives of Australians facing cruel execution overseas.
"Deserving" to die
On Perth radio last Thursday, the prime minister reacted to the latest reprehensible claims of the three Bali bombers that they were "holy warriors" who had no regrets about the October 2002 bombing which killed 202 people.
He condemned the men, who currently await execution, and said they "deserve the justice that we delivered to them". The following day he said the nature of that justice was a matter for the Indonesians and their justice system.
He claimed the government's policy was still one of "general opposition" to the death penalty, but the damage was done. No amount of "general opposition" will be meaningful in the face of specific support for particular people to be shot dead.
The Prime Minister's comments on the issue over two days were vintage Howard. Signal your support for an execution, say you don't support the death penalty in Australia and will only intervene in the case of Australians under sentence of death, and claim in general terms to be opposed to the death penalty.
Me too, business as usual.
Rudd has even adopted his predecessor's tactic that the penalty is a matter for the Indonesians. Obviously that is true, but it clearly signals Australia has no objection if that penalty is death.
Howard used this line many times to support executions in Indonesia, the United States and Iraq. The idea we would agree with a penalty simply because it was part of another country's legal system showed a soft spot for post-modern cultural relativism that he never betrayed in his speeches on education and history.
A gradual retreat
In Howard's case, his comments on the death penalty were more a matter of clarifying his position, inconsistent as it was. In Rudd's case, it has been a slow retreat from his rhetoric in opposition.
In October 2005, in the wrenching lead-up to the hanging of Australian citizen Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore, as shadow minister for foreign affairs he addressed parliament in ringing tones. Rudd told members they were speaking to a clemency motion because they held "one fundamental human value to be true, and that is the intrinsic dignity of all human life".
"For our policy to be credible, we must apply it universally," he said. "We must be credible in our opposition to capital punishment as a matter of policy wherever it occurs, whether in the United States, China or Singapore."
The day after Van Nguyen's execution, Rudd again stressed it was important our policy on the death penalty was consistent. He said "whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent".
Rudd, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith have repeatedly said the Government would only intervene in cases involving Australian citizens.
This would be fine, if it was only a comment about when Australia makes diplomatic or political representations. But in practice it seemed to mean the Government would only declare a death sentence was inappropriate if an Australian was involved.
Now that Rudd has indicated his satisfaction the Bali bombers will get what's coming to them, he has effectively said there are times when the death penalty is justified. He is giving a nod and wink to Indonesia to execute the bombers, while arguing only Australian citizens should be spared that punishment.
Agreement and hypocrisy?
But he is taking us down one of two dead-ends. One is the argument that Australia and many Asian countries actually agree on the fundamental position that some people, and some crimes, deserve execution. All that is left is to politely disagree on where to draw the line.
The other is the more dangerous road of hypocrisy, where all representations from the Australian government are dismissed as double standards and special pleading.
Asian countries are sensitive to being lectured by western governments, but they are just as sensitive to the taint of hypocrisy in the positions taken by those same governments.
If Australia took a consistent position on the death penalty, it would not be committing itself to intervening in every case, including sending in diplomats to argue for the lives of terrorists who killed our people. And it is not megaphone diplomacy to state what Australia believes, as a matter of official policy.
Simply taking, and defending, a principled position would be a step forward, and would give Australia the moral credibility to argue for the lives of its own citizens.
Both Howard and Rudd have been trying to walk both sides of the issue, courting the part of the electorate that supports the death penalty, while arguing they haven't abandoned a long-standing and bipartisan human rights policy.
My message to the prime minister is this: it isn't possible. This sort of populism at home will backfire in the region.
If the government's highest priority is saving Australian citizens from the noose and firing squad in Asia, which it should be, its hypocrisy will only undermine these efforts. As it has in the past, this inconsistency will put Australian lives at risk.
Is it too much to expect the Australian government to have a view that no execution is acceptable, and to say it out loud when asked?
Related stories:
Australia: Rudd supports Bali executions -- 02 October 2008
Australian government reminded of death penalty opposition -- 23 September 2008
Australia defends selective appeals for life -- 16 August 2008
'Only Australians' should be spared execution -- 06 January 2008
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions -- 10 October 2007
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August 2006
When he was opposition leader, Kevin Rudd was derided by the government for his 'me too' strategy in the 2007 election campaign, after he promised to implement several Coalition initiatives.
The strategy successfully neutralised areas of government advantage, clearing the air for Labor to focus on key areas of difference such as climate change.
While human rights barely figured in the campaign, it was expected a Labor government under Rudd would strike a more progressive path, albeit within the limits of his socially conservative outlook. And in the main it has done so, making changes from abolishing temporary protection visas to legislation removing commonwealth discrimination against same sex-couples.
As Attorney-General Robert McClelland said in his prepared speech for a conference at the Melbourne Law School last Friday: "I think it is fair to say that Australia is 'back in business' when it comes to human rights."
In one critical area of human rights policy, Kevin Rudd has been pursuing business of his own. His takeover of coalition policy on the death penalty was slower than the earlier acquisitions, but no less successful.
Last week he took full control of John Howard's position and committed to the double standards that will dog him as they dogged his predecessor. This hypocrisy will undermine the Rudd government’s efforts to save the lives of Australians facing cruel execution overseas.
"Deserving" to die
On Perth radio last Thursday, the prime minister reacted to the latest reprehensible claims of the three Bali bombers that they were "holy warriors" who had no regrets about the October 2002 bombing which killed 202 people.
He condemned the men, who currently await execution, and said they "deserve the justice that we delivered to them". The following day he said the nature of that justice was a matter for the Indonesians and their justice system.
He claimed the government's policy was still one of "general opposition" to the death penalty, but the damage was done. No amount of "general opposition" will be meaningful in the face of specific support for particular people to be shot dead.
The Prime Minister's comments on the issue over two days were vintage Howard. Signal your support for an execution, say you don't support the death penalty in Australia and will only intervene in the case of Australians under sentence of death, and claim in general terms to be opposed to the death penalty.
Me too, business as usual.
Rudd has even adopted his predecessor's tactic that the penalty is a matter for the Indonesians. Obviously that is true, but it clearly signals Australia has no objection if that penalty is death.
Howard used this line many times to support executions in Indonesia, the United States and Iraq. The idea we would agree with a penalty simply because it was part of another country's legal system showed a soft spot for post-modern cultural relativism that he never betrayed in his speeches on education and history.
A gradual retreat
In Howard's case, his comments on the death penalty were more a matter of clarifying his position, inconsistent as it was. In Rudd's case, it has been a slow retreat from his rhetoric in opposition.
In October 2005, in the wrenching lead-up to the hanging of Australian citizen Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore, as shadow minister for foreign affairs he addressed parliament in ringing tones. Rudd told members they were speaking to a clemency motion because they held "one fundamental human value to be true, and that is the intrinsic dignity of all human life".
"For our policy to be credible, we must apply it universally," he said. "We must be credible in our opposition to capital punishment as a matter of policy wherever it occurs, whether in the United States, China or Singapore."
The day after Van Nguyen's execution, Rudd again stressed it was important our policy on the death penalty was consistent. He said "whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent".
Rudd, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith have repeatedly said the Government would only intervene in cases involving Australian citizens.
This would be fine, if it was only a comment about when Australia makes diplomatic or political representations. But in practice it seemed to mean the Government would only declare a death sentence was inappropriate if an Australian was involved.
Now that Rudd has indicated his satisfaction the Bali bombers will get what's coming to them, he has effectively said there are times when the death penalty is justified. He is giving a nod and wink to Indonesia to execute the bombers, while arguing only Australian citizens should be spared that punishment.
Agreement and hypocrisy?
But he is taking us down one of two dead-ends. One is the argument that Australia and many Asian countries actually agree on the fundamental position that some people, and some crimes, deserve execution. All that is left is to politely disagree on where to draw the line.
The other is the more dangerous road of hypocrisy, where all representations from the Australian government are dismissed as double standards and special pleading.
Asian countries are sensitive to being lectured by western governments, but they are just as sensitive to the taint of hypocrisy in the positions taken by those same governments.
If Australia took a consistent position on the death penalty, it would not be committing itself to intervening in every case, including sending in diplomats to argue for the lives of terrorists who killed our people. And it is not megaphone diplomacy to state what Australia believes, as a matter of official policy.
Simply taking, and defending, a principled position would be a step forward, and would give Australia the moral credibility to argue for the lives of its own citizens.
Both Howard and Rudd have been trying to walk both sides of the issue, courting the part of the electorate that supports the death penalty, while arguing they haven't abandoned a long-standing and bipartisan human rights policy.
My message to the prime minister is this: it isn't possible. This sort of populism at home will backfire in the region.
If the government's highest priority is saving Australian citizens from the noose and firing squad in Asia, which it should be, its hypocrisy will only undermine these efforts. As it has in the past, this inconsistency will put Australian lives at risk.
Is it too much to expect the Australian government to have a view that no execution is acceptable, and to say it out loud when asked?
Related stories:
Australia: Rudd supports Bali executions -- 02 October 2008
Australian government reminded of death penalty opposition -- 23 September 2008
Australia defends selective appeals for life -- 16 August 2008
'Only Australians' should be spared execution -- 06 January 2008
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions -- 10 October 2007
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August 2006
Friday, 6 June 2008
Abolition: Political parties fail in Taiwan
The Taipei Times newspaper has condemned both of the country's main political parties for failing to abolish the death penalty, and failing to inform public debate about whether it was appropriate or effective.
In a sharply critical editorial on 28 May, the newspaper said the death penalty was an example of governments' selective use of public opinion, which was "ignored or drawn upon" by policy makers to serve their own interests.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) reduced the use of the death penalty over its eight years in office, but it "failed to carry out one of its professed goals" of abolishing it altogether.
The DPP had claimed it could not abolish the death penalty "because a majority of the public believed the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to violent crime".
The newspaper feared the current government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) already appeared "set to follow suit".
The current Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) said shortly after the government's inauguration that she would consider abolishing the death penalty.
But "[i]n the same breath, however, she warned that she had no clue how to go about achieving this goal, as it would run counter to public opinion".
Ineffective revenge
The Taipei Times said neither party had promoted the increasing number of countries that had abolished the death penalty, leaving Taiwan "among a shrinking minority".
Furthermore, studies had not found evidence the death penalty deterred violent crime, or that it increased after abolition.
"Capital punishment can therefore only serve two purposes: to assure the public that this "effective" deterrent exists (although it is not effective) and to fill a need for retribution proportional to the crime committed," the editorial said.
"But modern justice systems have long since abandoned the "eye for an eye" philosophy as inadequate, inappropriate and inhumane."
It said the country's experience with doubtful trials had shown any claim the courts were infallible "would be laughable".
"The government must therefore make it clear to the public: Even one innocent person executed is far too high a price for what essentially boils down to revenge."
'Stop the excuses'
The editorial writers said factors such as the global trend away from the death penalty, and reassurance of measures such as regulating parole for violent criminals, could help move public opinion.
They concluded: "It would seem, then, not so daunting a task after all to present an alternative to the death penalty that both the public and government find fair.
"It is time for Taiwan's leaders to stop serving up excuses and set the ball in motion."
(Thanks to Celia at China Activist Weekly for the tip.)
Related stories:
Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death --12 February, 2008
Taiwan 'improving' but call for abolition -- 11 October, 2007
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May, 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January, 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January, 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December, 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February, 2006
In a sharply critical editorial on 28 May, the newspaper said the death penalty was an example of governments' selective use of public opinion, which was "ignored or drawn upon" by policy makers to serve their own interests.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) reduced the use of the death penalty over its eight years in office, but it "failed to carry out one of its professed goals" of abolishing it altogether.
The DPP had claimed it could not abolish the death penalty "because a majority of the public believed the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to violent crime".
The newspaper feared the current government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) already appeared "set to follow suit".
The current Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) said shortly after the government's inauguration that she would consider abolishing the death penalty.
But "[i]n the same breath, however, she warned that she had no clue how to go about achieving this goal, as it would run counter to public opinion".
Ineffective revenge
The Taipei Times said neither party had promoted the increasing number of countries that had abolished the death penalty, leaving Taiwan "among a shrinking minority".
Furthermore, studies had not found evidence the death penalty deterred violent crime, or that it increased after abolition.
"Capital punishment can therefore only serve two purposes: to assure the public that this "effective" deterrent exists (although it is not effective) and to fill a need for retribution proportional to the crime committed," the editorial said.
"But modern justice systems have long since abandoned the "eye for an eye" philosophy as inadequate, inappropriate and inhumane."
It said the country's experience with doubtful trials had shown any claim the courts were infallible "would be laughable".
"The government must therefore make it clear to the public: Even one innocent person executed is far too high a price for what essentially boils down to revenge."
'Stop the excuses'
The editorial writers said factors such as the global trend away from the death penalty, and reassurance of measures such as regulating parole for violent criminals, could help move public opinion.
They concluded: "It would seem, then, not so daunting a task after all to present an alternative to the death penalty that both the public and government find fair.
"It is time for Taiwan's leaders to stop serving up excuses and set the ball in motion."
(Thanks to Celia at China Activist Weekly for the tip.)
Related stories:
Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death --12 February, 2008
Taiwan 'improving' but call for abolition -- 11 October, 2007
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May, 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January, 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January, 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December, 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February, 2006
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Asia leads the world's known executions
Asian countries have once again lead the world's known executions, according to annual statistics released today by Amnesty International (AI).
The human rights organisation reported that during 2007, at least 1252 people were executed in 24 countries, and at least 3347 people were sentenced to death in 51 countries.
Ten countries accounted for 1205 of the known executions in the past year -- or 96 per cent of the global total.
Half of these ten countries are in Asia, between them accounting for 962 of known executions -- 77 per cent of the global total.
The top ten executioners included:
China 470+
Iran 317+
Pakistan 135+
Viet Nam 25+
Afghanistan 15
The statistics recorded a drop in the number of known executions in China, but sharp increases in the numbers recorded in Iran, Pakistan and Viet Nam.
China recorded a drop from more than 1010 known executions in 2006.
In Iran there were 177 executions counted in 2006, Pakistan 82 and Viet Nam 14.
AI estimated the global death row population was between 18,311 and 27,562 people at the end of 2007, based on the number of people thought to be condemned to death and awaiting execution.
Brutal secrets
These figures must be taken with caution, however, since they record only those executions that are publicly known.
For a penalty that is shrouded in such secrecy in many countries, the true number of executions each year is certainly significantly higher.
The AI report Death sentences and executions in 2007 highlighted China, Singapore, Malaysia and Mongolia as among the many countries that "carry out executions in secret and refuse to divulge any information on the use of the death penalty".
"The United Nations has repeatedly called for the death penalty only to be used in an open and transparent manner," AI said.
It said China was "the world's top executioner", classifying the death penalty as a state secret.
"As the world and Olympic guests are left guessing, only the Chinese authorities know exactly how many people have been killed with state authorization," AI said in a media release.
"The secretive use of the death penalty must stop: the veil of secrecy surrounding the death penalty must be lifted. Many governments claim that executions take place with public support. People therefore have a right to know what is being done in their name."
Asia's table
Amnesty International's 2007 figures for the Asian region:
Afghanistan
15 executions
death sentences
Bangladesh
6 executions
93 death sentences
China
470+ executions
1860+ death sentences
India
100+ death sentences
Indonesia
1+ executions
11+ death sentences
Iran
317+ executions
Unknown number of death sentences
Japan
9 executions
23 death sentences
Malaysia
12 death sentences
Mongolia
45 death sentences
North Korea
Unknown number of executions
Unknown number of death sentences
Pakistan
135+ executions
307+ death sentences
Papua New Guinea
3+ death sentences
Singapore
2 executions
2 death sentences
South Korea
2 death sentences
Sri Lanka
10+ death sentences
Taiwan
5 death sentences
Thailand
6+ death sentences
Viet Nam
25+ executions
83+ death sentences
AI said it was concerned that Mongolia and Malaysia may have executed people, but "due to the secretive nature of the use of the death penalty the organization was unable to obtain reliable information".
Related stories:
20,000 waiting to be killed – 23 April, 2006
The human rights organisation reported that during 2007, at least 1252 people were executed in 24 countries, and at least 3347 people were sentenced to death in 51 countries.
Ten countries accounted for 1205 of the known executions in the past year -- or 96 per cent of the global total.
Half of these ten countries are in Asia, between them accounting for 962 of known executions -- 77 per cent of the global total.
The top ten executioners included:
China 470+
Iran 317+
Pakistan 135+
Viet Nam 25+
Afghanistan 15
The statistics recorded a drop in the number of known executions in China, but sharp increases in the numbers recorded in Iran, Pakistan and Viet Nam.
China recorded a drop from more than 1010 known executions in 2006.
In Iran there were 177 executions counted in 2006, Pakistan 82 and Viet Nam 14.
AI estimated the global death row population was between 18,311 and 27,562 people at the end of 2007, based on the number of people thought to be condemned to death and awaiting execution.
Brutal secrets
These figures must be taken with caution, however, since they record only those executions that are publicly known.
For a penalty that is shrouded in such secrecy in many countries, the true number of executions each year is certainly significantly higher.
The AI report Death sentences and executions in 2007 highlighted China, Singapore, Malaysia and Mongolia as among the many countries that "carry out executions in secret and refuse to divulge any information on the use of the death penalty".
"The United Nations has repeatedly called for the death penalty only to be used in an open and transparent manner," AI said.
It said China was "the world's top executioner", classifying the death penalty as a state secret.
"As the world and Olympic guests are left guessing, only the Chinese authorities know exactly how many people have been killed with state authorization," AI said in a media release.
"The secretive use of the death penalty must stop: the veil of secrecy surrounding the death penalty must be lifted. Many governments claim that executions take place with public support. People therefore have a right to know what is being done in their name."
Asia's table
Amnesty International's 2007 figures for the Asian region:
Afghanistan
15 executions
death sentences
Bangladesh
6 executions
93 death sentences
China
470+ executions
1860+ death sentences
India
100+ death sentences
Indonesia
1+ executions
11+ death sentences
Iran
317+ executions
Unknown number of death sentences
Japan
9 executions
23 death sentences
Malaysia
12 death sentences
Mongolia
45 death sentences
North Korea
Unknown number of executions
Unknown number of death sentences
Pakistan
135+ executions
307+ death sentences
Papua New Guinea
3+ death sentences
Singapore
2 executions
2 death sentences
South Korea
2 death sentences
Sri Lanka
10+ death sentences
Taiwan
5 death sentences
Thailand
6+ death sentences
Viet Nam
25+ executions
83+ death sentences
AI said it was concerned that Mongolia and Malaysia may have executed people, but "due to the secretive nature of the use of the death penalty the organization was unable to obtain reliable information".
Related stories:
20,000 waiting to be killed – 23 April, 2006
Sunday, 9 December 2007
Japan finally names three executed
Japan lifted some of the secrecy surrounding its death penalty system when it released the names of three men hanged on Friday (7 December).
The Justice Ministry confirmed that Seiha Fujima, 47, and Hiroki Fukawa, 42, were hanged in Tokyo, and 75-year-old Noboru Ikemoto was hanged in Osaka. All three were hanged for murder.
In the past the government refused to confirm the details of executed prisoners, although they were often reported by Japanese newspapers and human rights organisations.
Newspaper Asahi Shimbun reported it was "the first disclosure [of executed prisoners' names] in the history of the nation's postwar judicial system".
It said the ministry distributed three sheets of paper to the media shortly after 11am, detailing the names and crimes of the three men, and where they were executed.
Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama also announced details of the executions that day at a meeting of the House of Representatives Judicial Affairs Committee.
"It was painful to sign the executions, because it meant I was taking lives by using the state authority," he told the committee.
But he said they would help restore public safety, "soothe victims' feelings and meet the public's expectations".
The newspaper reported there was confusion among members of the parliamentary committee after the details were announced.
It said Democratic Party of Japan member Ritsuo Hosokawa stopped questioning the minster about the death penalty after he made the announcement.
"It came as a shock," Hosokawa said.
Unprecedented openness
Asahi Shimbun said the information was released for a number of reasons stemming from changes to the nation's justice system, including "the trend toward greater information disclosure, and the approaching start of the lay judge system".
It said sources indicated the justice minister also saw a "need to give more consideration to bereaved families of crime victims".
Later that day, the minister told a press conference that disclosing the details would generate public support for the executions.
"Disclosing their names and details of their crimes is the way to obtain the public's consent," he said.
An unnamed senior ministry official was quoted as saying: "With the general progression in disclosure of government information, it has become difficult to cling to a hard stance only when it comes to executions."
Japan has now executed nine people this year, with three other men being hanged in April and three in August.
There are 104 prisoners still on death row.
More 'tranquil' minister
In October Hatoyama speculated about whether there was a more "tranquil" method of execution than hanging.
In September he sparked controversy when he announced the establishment of a group to study whether the justice minister could delegate the power to authorise executions, so there was an "automatic and objective" procedure for executing
He said at the time that "no one" wanted to sign an execution order.
Human rights condemnation
The United Nations (UN) top human rights official deplored the latest executions and encouraged Japan to reconsider its use of the death penalty.
"This practice is problematic under international law, and I call on Japan to reconsider its approach in this regard," said Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The UN News Service reported her particular "dismay" at the execution of a prisoner over 75.
She said "it is difficult to see what legitimate purpose is served by carrying out such executions of the elderly, and at the very least on humanitarian grounds, I would urge Japan to refrain from such action".
Japan also executed elderly men on 25 December, 2006, when men aged 75 and 77 years old were among four prisoners hanged.
The UN news story noted reports that the executions were carried out suddenly with neither the prisoners nor their families being given advance warning.
The UN News Service said Arbour urged the Japanese Government to implement a moratorium on executions or ban the practice altogether, as a growing number of nations have.
Amnesty International strongly condemned the executions, which it said took place "despite the UN General Assembly's adoption of a resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions on 15 November".
"Executions in Japan are typically held in secret. Prisoners are only informed hours before their executions and carried out without prior notice to the prisoners or their family," the organisation noted in a statement.
Related stories:
Minister wants ‘tranquil’ killing: Japan -- 29 October, 2007
Japan: New minister will approve hangings -- 4 September, 2007
Japan executed mentally ill man -- 26 August, 2007
Japan: Lawyers condemn three more executions --24 August, 2007
Urgent move to stop executions in Japan -- 8 August, 2007
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
The Justice Ministry confirmed that Seiha Fujima, 47, and Hiroki Fukawa, 42, were hanged in Tokyo, and 75-year-old Noboru Ikemoto was hanged in Osaka. All three were hanged for murder.
In the past the government refused to confirm the details of executed prisoners, although they were often reported by Japanese newspapers and human rights organisations.
Newspaper Asahi Shimbun reported it was "the first disclosure [of executed prisoners' names] in the history of the nation's postwar judicial system".
It said the ministry distributed three sheets of paper to the media shortly after 11am, detailing the names and crimes of the three men, and where they were executed.
Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama also announced details of the executions that day at a meeting of the House of Representatives Judicial Affairs Committee.
"It was painful to sign the executions, because it meant I was taking lives by using the state authority," he told the committee.
But he said they would help restore public safety, "soothe victims' feelings and meet the public's expectations".
The newspaper reported there was confusion among members of the parliamentary committee after the details were announced.
It said Democratic Party of Japan member Ritsuo Hosokawa stopped questioning the minster about the death penalty after he made the announcement.
"It came as a shock," Hosokawa said.
Unprecedented openness
Asahi Shimbun said the information was released for a number of reasons stemming from changes to the nation's justice system, including "the trend toward greater information disclosure, and the approaching start of the lay judge system".
It said sources indicated the justice minister also saw a "need to give more consideration to bereaved families of crime victims".
Later that day, the minister told a press conference that disclosing the details would generate public support for the executions.
"Disclosing their names and details of their crimes is the way to obtain the public's consent," he said.
An unnamed senior ministry official was quoted as saying: "With the general progression in disclosure of government information, it has become difficult to cling to a hard stance only when it comes to executions."
Japan has now executed nine people this year, with three other men being hanged in April and three in August.
There are 104 prisoners still on death row.
More 'tranquil' minister
In October Hatoyama speculated about whether there was a more "tranquil" method of execution than hanging.
In September he sparked controversy when he announced the establishment of a group to study whether the justice minister could delegate the power to authorise executions, so there was an "automatic and objective" procedure for executing
He said at the time that "no one" wanted to sign an execution order.
Human rights condemnation
The United Nations (UN) top human rights official deplored the latest executions and encouraged Japan to reconsider its use of the death penalty.
"This practice is problematic under international law, and I call on Japan to reconsider its approach in this regard," said Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The UN News Service reported her particular "dismay" at the execution of a prisoner over 75.
She said "it is difficult to see what legitimate purpose is served by carrying out such executions of the elderly, and at the very least on humanitarian grounds, I would urge Japan to refrain from such action".
Japan also executed elderly men on 25 December, 2006, when men aged 75 and 77 years old were among four prisoners hanged.
The UN news story noted reports that the executions were carried out suddenly with neither the prisoners nor their families being given advance warning.
The UN News Service said Arbour urged the Japanese Government to implement a moratorium on executions or ban the practice altogether, as a growing number of nations have.
Amnesty International strongly condemned the executions, which it said took place "despite the UN General Assembly's adoption of a resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions on 15 November".
"Executions in Japan are typically held in secret. Prisoners are only informed hours before their executions and carried out without prior notice to the prisoners or their family," the organisation noted in a statement.
Related stories:
Minister wants ‘tranquil’ killing: Japan -- 29 October, 2007
Japan: New minister will approve hangings -- 4 September, 2007
Japan executed mentally ill man -- 26 August, 2007
Japan: Lawyers condemn three more executions --24 August, 2007
Urgent move to stop executions in Japan -- 8 August, 2007
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Friday, 24 August 2007
Japan: Lawyers condemn three more executions
Japan's peak legal organisation has condemned the execution of three men yesterday, and called for reform of the country's justice system to prevent innocent people being sentenced to death.
The Asahi Shimbun reported that three men were hanged on Thursday morning in detention centers in Tokyo and Nagoya.
It said the three were Hifumi Takezawa, 69, and Yoshio Iwamoto, 63, who were executed at the Tokyo Detention House, and Kozo Segawa, 60, who was hanged at the Nagoya Detention House. Amnesty Internatinal said the three were convicted of murder between 1990 and 1999.
Agence France-Presse quoted a justice ministry spokeswoman as saying: "The justice ministry executed 3 criminals who had been sentenced to death." But in line with its usual practice the government refused to release any further details, including their names.
Record number
Japan's justice minister Jinen Nagase has now approved a record ten executions since he took office on 26 September 2006. Three other prisoners were executed in April 2007 and four in December 2006.
The Asahi Shimbun said this was the highest number of executions approved by any one justice minister since a moratorium on the death penalty was lifted in 1993.
His immediate predecessor refused to approve any death warrants during his eleven months in office.
Legal criticism
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations condemned the three latest hangings and called for deficiencies in the country's justice system to be addressed before any more executions were carried out.
It said these same deficiencies had led to innocent people being condemned to death in the past, including prisoners who were released from death row in the 1980s after having being found innocent.
The problems included a system of up to 23 days detention of suspects in police custody, which human rights organisations say has allowed ill-treatment and abuse by police, and encouraged forced confessions.
In a statement posted on its website (Japanese text available here) the organisation called for a national debate on the death penalty.
"The danger that mistaken death sentences will be handed down still exists,'' the statement said, according to a report by Bloomberg News.
"The operational and systemic defects that have led to erroneous death sentences haven't been fundamentally remedied.''
Public opinion 'distorted'
The Japanese government has justified the use of the death penalty by saying it is responding to public support for executions.
Bloomberg said the latest telephone survey by the Cabinet Office found 81 per cent of 2,048 registered voters supported the death penalty in "unavoidable circumstances",' while 6 per cent supported its abolition.
Bloomberg said the United Nations had described public support as misleading where death penalty cases were surrounded by secrecy.
"There is an obvious inconsistency when a state invokes public opinion on the one hand, while on the other hand deliberately withholding relevant information on the use of the death penalty from the public,'' the UN Commission on Human Rights said in a report in March 2006.
Related stories:
Urgent move to stop executions in Japan -- 08 August, 2007
Japan hangs three 'to keep numbers down' -- 29 April, 2007
Japan: Christmas hangings draw protest -- 03 January, 2007
Executions may resume in Japan -- 21 December, 2006
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Japan: Lonely wait for the noose -- 5 April 2006
Japan's death row hell -- 3 March 2006
The Asahi Shimbun reported that three men were hanged on Thursday morning in detention centers in Tokyo and Nagoya.
It said the three were Hifumi Takezawa, 69, and Yoshio Iwamoto, 63, who were executed at the Tokyo Detention House, and Kozo Segawa, 60, who was hanged at the Nagoya Detention House. Amnesty Internatinal said the three were convicted of murder between 1990 and 1999.
Agence France-Presse quoted a justice ministry spokeswoman as saying: "The justice ministry executed 3 criminals who had been sentenced to death." But in line with its usual practice the government refused to release any further details, including their names.
Record number
Japan's justice minister Jinen Nagase has now approved a record ten executions since he took office on 26 September 2006. Three other prisoners were executed in April 2007 and four in December 2006.
The Asahi Shimbun said this was the highest number of executions approved by any one justice minister since a moratorium on the death penalty was lifted in 1993.
His immediate predecessor refused to approve any death warrants during his eleven months in office.
Legal criticism
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations condemned the three latest hangings and called for deficiencies in the country's justice system to be addressed before any more executions were carried out.
It said these same deficiencies had led to innocent people being condemned to death in the past, including prisoners who were released from death row in the 1980s after having being found innocent.
The problems included a system of up to 23 days detention of suspects in police custody, which human rights organisations say has allowed ill-treatment and abuse by police, and encouraged forced confessions.
In a statement posted on its website (Japanese text available here) the organisation called for a national debate on the death penalty.
"The danger that mistaken death sentences will be handed down still exists,'' the statement said, according to a report by Bloomberg News.
"The operational and systemic defects that have led to erroneous death sentences haven't been fundamentally remedied.''
Public opinion 'distorted'
The Japanese government has justified the use of the death penalty by saying it is responding to public support for executions.
Bloomberg said the latest telephone survey by the Cabinet Office found 81 per cent of 2,048 registered voters supported the death penalty in "unavoidable circumstances",' while 6 per cent supported its abolition.
Bloomberg said the United Nations had described public support as misleading where death penalty cases were surrounded by secrecy.
"There is an obvious inconsistency when a state invokes public opinion on the one hand, while on the other hand deliberately withholding relevant information on the use of the death penalty from the public,'' the UN Commission on Human Rights said in a report in March 2006.
Related stories:
Urgent move to stop executions in Japan -- 08 August, 2007
Japan hangs three 'to keep numbers down' -- 29 April, 2007
Japan: Christmas hangings draw protest -- 03 January, 2007
Executions may resume in Japan -- 21 December, 2006
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Japan: Lonely wait for the noose -- 5 April 2006
Japan's death row hell -- 3 March 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
